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

"Deat JB" Mailbag #46

This one is just so, soooo...aaaargGH!

Dear JB:

My DM won't run combat.

I know, I know. "Just talk to your DM or get a new one"

But how odd is this? Has anyone else ever experienced this?

My DM won't call for initiative. We've been playing half a dozens sessions now. Even in the first "combat" encounter we had, the enemies didn't attack anyone. We came upon them about to attack someone else and then they just... didn't.

Bandits stalking us in the forest? They don't attack on being spotted.

We attack something? It doesn't hit back. For several rounds.

It's just bizarre.

My DM Won't Run Combat

Dear Player:

I am sorry to be the one to break this news to you (sorry, because anyone with a modicum of sense should have already figured this out): your "DM" is a dipshit who doesn't know or understand the game they are purporting to run. 

They are an idiot. They are clueless. They don't know what they're doing. They're playing the game wrong. 

I am trying different ways to communicate the same thing because...well, I mean, because this should be obvious to you but for some reason it's not. THAT's the bit that is "bizarre:" how can you not see that your "DM" is a fucking clown who has no business masquerading under the title?

You've been playing for half a dozen sessions...you probably should have figured this out by session two, session three tops (I know how 5E players tend to sit around doing a lot of nothing...). 

This person claiming to be a Dungeon Master is a hopeless poseur and class-A loser. But what about you? That's the real question here. Is this what you want to do with the finite amount of time allotted to your time on this planet? How many HOURS did you waste in these half dozen sessions of accomplishing nothing with a DM who is clearly incompetent? 

How do you feel about yourself? How do you feel about your life? Where is your self-respect?

Find a real Dungeon Master or learn to be one yourself. But don't spend one more minute of time with this jackass. No, do not even bother "talking to them;" this is not about this dumbass getting their shit together (clearly they are incapable)...this is about YOU getting your shit together. 

Sincerely, 

JB

Poison

This is not what I should be doing.

I am sitting at the car dealership, getting a 75K service and oil change (as one does). I am eating a fresh baked cookie some lady just brought around (chocolate chip), and I am putting off the adventure writing that I've been doing the last two days, in order to write this post. Because I feel bad I haven't posted anything in a couple days.

What I should be is writing that darn adventure...and I will be getting back to it today (maybe after a second cookie). But I fell down the rabbit-hole of checking Ye Old Reddit feed and Oh. My. F'ing. God.

It makes me want to cry. Just sob.

The title of this post is "Poison." Because I was just listening to the band (Poison) in the car on the way up here. I was not a fan of Poison back in the day...they were all that was wrong with the crass commercialization of rock music, they were all about the "big hair," they were a "chick band," whatever. Reasons, all right? But they have exactly TWO great songs: Talk Dirty To Me and Nothing But A Good Time.  Both of which, at first pass, feel like throwaway pop metal with a catchy guitar riff (which they are) but which have the ability to evoke far deeper emotion...a nostalgia that conjures memories of early sexual encounters as a hormonal teenager and the alternating hopelessness and hedonism of a young person in their twenties with a few bucks to spend but nowhere near enough to 'make a life.' I don't know about kids these days who just live at home till there 30 and crush out on video games and internet porn, but back when I was growing up (the 80s and 90s) these were fairly universal experiences for "us kids" to go through.

Point is: I appreciate them now.  I wonder if they'll ever speak to my own kids some day.

This Reddit roll, man...just look at these titles from the DnD channel with the topic heading of "DMing:"

Any Tips For A New DM?

Where Can I Find The Text In Each Book Describing How The DM Can Change Or Ignore The Rules?

Awkward Silences With The DM

How Do You Create A Campaign?

Any And All Tips For A Brand New DM?

How To Make Low-Level Encounters Fun And Challenging?

Story Telling Struggles

How To Make Players Engaged In RP?

I'm Very Confused On New DND Content??

Trying DMing For The First Time

How Do You Kick Off And End A Session?

DMing My First Table

Guys, It's My First Time DMing. I Am Starting A PbP Campaign. Am I Being A Bad DM?

Potential Ideas For My Campaign?

What's The Best Starting Campaign For A 1st Time DM?

DMs, What Are Some Skills/Things You Had To Learn Before A Session?

About To Be A New DM, Any Advice You Wish You Got?

Need A Campaign Idea

Need Some Advice On My Story

Need Help Looking For Boss Music [sigh]

All of these have been posted in the last 48 hours. Almost all of them start with some sentence or two describing how they are new to DMing or first time DMing or have no experience DMing or...whatever. The point is: most of them are newbies. AND THEY ARE COMING TO REDDIT TO FIND OUT HOW TO RUN A DUNGEONS & DRAGONS GAME.

Do people not see how RIDICULOUS that is? Is this not the kind of information one might assume would be in the INSTRUCTIONS MANUAL of the game they are playing? And be fairly clearly laid out? Like, maybe on PAGE ONE? Or (if not on page one), wouldn't you think that Page One would say "Hey, in Chapter 5 we describe how to run the game as a DM." You'd think this, right? I mean, I would think this.

But I am old. See my reference to "Poison" above.

On the first page of the Introduction to Moldvay's Basic set (in the first column) I find this:

"Part eight, DUNGEON MASTER INFORMATION, gives a step-by-step design of a sample dungeon level plus tips to help the referee."

I mean, it's D&D right? Not rocket science (which I presume is difficult). All these questions, all these subjects should be addressed right out of the box. Why are people going to the internet for answers to basic questions about DMing? WHY?

And, just by the way, not ALL of the questions are from "newbs." Here's a gem:

So im running a new game for some friends who are brand new to dnd. Ive been dming for 12 years now so i tend to run my own adventures instead of the books. However this is my first time running more than one campaign at a time and ive put so much time and effort into my main group that ive drawn a complete blank on what I should do with my new group. If you guys have any ideas for cool stories I could run them through that would really jump start my creativity and then I can take it from there. I just need something to get me going. So any suggestions?

Yeah, I've got a suggestion: run your new group in the same campaign world as your current, on-going group. Why are you trying to make more work for yourself (when you're already making more work by running multiple groups)? Again: not rocket science. You have 12 years of experience. You are adept at making and running your own adventures. Surely you have already created/run material that could be recycled for the new folks...why are you trying to reinvent the wheel from scratch?

Also: learn punctuation. It's a life skill.

I really, really, really want to take a break from the internet...at least, from all the "interactions." The blogs, the discords, the reddits, the forums, etc. It is all so non-helpful, so non-constructive. And it makes me sad. It saps my energy. I, again, (briefly) considered actually creating a profile on the reddit to address these querying questioners, to get involved in the verbal sparring and disinformation and misinformation that is being promulgated by "D&D experts." I considered it...as if this would be a good use of my time. As if trying to put out each small fire on an individual level would somehow keep the  forest from burning down around my ears.

No. Poison. This shit is poison. 

SO, I'm going to step away. Going to take a deep breath. Brew a pot of coffee, throw on a little Sade Love Deluxe (I thought about the Eagles, but that way leads to day drinking). Going to buckle down and see how much of this adventure I can knock out today. I'm hoping to, at least, finish the crypt portion...that part's easy.

Let Rome burn, while I fiddle away. Ain't looking for nothing but a good time right now.

"Dear JB" Mailbag #45

Hey JB!

My kids (and a few friends) are starting a D&D session tonight. They’ve already made their character sheets. I’ve watched Critical Role, but I know a real 9–12 year old game is going to be way different.

I’m not the DM, but I’ll be in the room helping to moderate and keep things under control. The kids get super excited, and it’s a mixed group of boys and girls.

I’m looking for tips on:

• Keeping the energy from getting too wild
• Making sure everyone gets a turn and stays engaged
• Helping the DM without stepping on the story
• Any tricks for handling the chaos that comes with kids this age

Basically, I want the session to be fun, smooth, and memorable for everyone without me having to run the game. 

Thanks for any advice!

Mom, Looking For Advice For My Kid's DnD

Hey, Mom:

I run an AD&D game for my kids and their friends. I love D&D; I've been running D&D games for 40+ years. As a parent, a coach of youth sports, and an experienced DM, I have a pretty good handle on the nuance of the job, and the kids have a good time. They ask me to run the game for them. And I'm happy to oblige.

It sounds like you don't know much about D&D. You've watched Critical Role (um...NOT D&D). You're not planning on acting as DM and don't want to run the game. Given this, here is the best advice I can give you:

Leave the room. Shut the door. Let the kids play.

I got my first D&D set around the age of 9 and was DMing for myself and my friends by age 10. There were no parents; there was no adult supervision. We were Just Fine.

Was there "wild energy?" Yes. Was there "chaos?" Yes. Was it a "mixed group of boys and girls?" Yes.

Were we doing bong rips and swilling six-packs and sticking each other with sharp objects and getting each other pregnant and such? No. Were we worshipping Satan? No. Torturing small animals? Maybe...if you count my younger brother who insisted on playing. But he tortured us, too.

Look, I understand the helicopter parent thing. I'm the father of two. But I know D&D and you, ma'am, do not. Let me put it this way: when you were a kid, hanging out in the basement with your friends playing a board game, did you need a parent to moderate your play? To make sure you were all "engaged" and "taking turns?" At the age of 11 or 12? 

Because, if so, you had a really dysfunctional childhood. 

If your kids are OLD ENOUGH TO READ and UNDERSTAND the instructions, then they are old enough to play the game WITHOUT YOU. So let them play. You're not interested in playing...that's fine. I wouldn't have wanted my parents to play when I was a kid. My kids are different...but that's because I taught them how to play (at their request). 

Here's what's going to happen, Mom, while you're not in the room:

• The kids are going to be rowdy (because that's how kids are).
• The kids are going to police themselves with their own "kid social/group dynamic" (because that's what kids do)
• If they aren't having fun with the game, they'll stop trying to play after 20-40 minutes and they'll do something else...chase each other, shoot each other with Nerf guns, play a different, less complicated board game, go outside, etc.
• If they ARE having fun they'll sit around playing for a couple hours (maybe) before they get bored and decide to do something else...chase each other, shoot each other with Nerf guns, play a different, less complicated board game, go outside, etc.
• If you offer them snacks, they will eat them like non-conscious zombies. If you offer them real food they will tell you they're not hungry until you make them come to the table (at which point they'll eat like ravenous wolves).

If you want to do a good job, keep them hydrated.

But that's it...that's really all you need to do. If anyone starts bleeding, they'll come looking for you (as kids do). If anyone starts screaming in pain and distress, you'll hear it and can come a-running (as mom's do). This is no different from any other kid activity...and it's a lot less dangerous than most. I mean, a LOT less dangerous...kids can fall down and sprain their wrist or break their collar bone just playing in the backyard. As long as your children are smart enough not to stuff dice in their various orifices, they should be safe as can be.

So what's the issue, Mom? Your kids are the cruel, bullying type? Or their friends are? They've all decided to "nerd out" together playing D&D...how bad are you afraid they'll treat each other?

Let it go, Mom. Breathe deep breaths. Check your email. Read a book. Have a big ol' glass of wine while chopping some fresh veg and/or fruit to feed the youngsters some healthy snacks. Take a chill pill.

The kids are all right.

Sincerely,

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #44

Somewhere over the Arctic Circle, unable to sleep despite really trying (it was a comfortable ride, just had too many amps running through my veins), I decided I might as well put together a blog post from the ol' Reddit mail bag. Call this one "a brief interlude"....

Dear JB: 

I don’t intend this to be a rant, so I apologize if it becomes one.

Over the last 4 years I have been apart of 6 in-person tables. 2 as a dm, 4 as a player, and in all but one I find a constant trope is that players are loath to do anything that even resembles role playing, and I just want to know if this consistent with other peoples experiences.

In the games I dm’d I found myself initially asking players, “do you want to role play that for me. (ie almost guaranteed success) or do you want to roll for it?”

And I want to clarify, when I say role play, I don’t explicitly mean voices or pantomime. I mean describe what you are doing. How you are doing it. Your robbing a wallet, ok, are you going in two fingers and pulling slow, and you going for a, “hey buddy, give us a hug,” and pluck it, or do you want to walking into them and do a, “hey watch it!”

More often than now I’d be met with a slightly cringing, “does it matter? I rolled a 19.”

In the 4 games as a player I found it was pretty much the same. A dm dying for someone to interact beyond the mechanicals, but players focused on being uber efficient and getting thru as much as possible per session.

The only game that I found any different was in a store one shot that ended up going for 3 sessions where I was playing with 14/15 year old kids who were happy to full send it.

And to be honest, I was considering that dnd was maybe not for me before those shop sessions.

So I want to ask, is this just the way things are now? Or do you have a lot of role play at your tables? 

Is Role-Playing A Bit Of A Unicorn?

Dear Seeker of Unicorns:

No, role-playing is NOT “a bit of a unicorn.” But when it comes to the objectives of play, it IS a false god to worship…or even seek.

And, yes, if me saying that means “Dnd is maybe not for you” then, yeah, that’s what I mean.

However, I will elaborate.

ROLE-PLAYING HAPPENS. Happens all the time. Yes, yes, I’m talking about in D&D…even “old edition” D&D like the kind I play. It happens All The Time. Because the people playing the game…the players…are human beings and human beings anthropomorphize the shit out of things in the course of play. That’s a natural, human thing to do. And it includes talking in character or acting in character (and by “acting” I mean behaving, not acting like an actor on stage or screen).

D&D is a game. In the game, players face perilous dangers hoping for fame and fortune. We call these things “adventures.” The CHARACTER of a player, is the vehicle for the player to have those adventures in the imaginary game environment…the SETTING that is created by the DM. We call an ongoing series of such adventures a “campaign.” Got that?

SO, given that you have this particular vehicle (your elven thief or your human paladin or WHATever)…you use the capabilities of that vehicle for navigating the imaginary environment, i.e. “for playing the game.” And what is the game again? Oh, yeah: exploring an imaginary world, facing perilous dangers in the hope of winning fame and fortune.

What part of that requires describing in vivid detail how your thief picks a pocket? Or how they interact with a shopkeeper? Or even spending time and energy narrating the way you swing a sword?

NONE OF IT.

The players you complain about…the ones “focused on being uber efficient and getting thru as much as possible per session”…they are trying to play the game. They are trying to face perilous dangers and win fame and fortune. And they know their time is limited and they DO want to get through as much of the session as possible. Because That’s The Game. They are Playing A Game. They are ACTIVE. They are ENGAGED. They are not interested in performing theater for the table.

These are the kinds of players that a competent Dungeon Master WANTS at the table. They are PLAYING D&D THE RIGHT WAY, rather than screwing around like a bunch of goofball 14 and 15 year-olds.

If that’s not what you want out of the game…if what you want is performative collaborative storytelling…then, yeah, D&D may not be the right game for you.

But, of course, if that IS what you want from the game, you’re not alone out there. This is the major issue with the (majority) of the D&D community these days: they believe that this is what D&D is. They think this for a variety of reasons, mainly misinformation due to A) poorly written and/or unread instructions, B) lack of support/direction from the game’s publisher, and C) learning the game through on-line streaming “shows” like Critical Role and believing ‘O that’s what D&D looks like!’

Go join a theater troupe if you want to celebrate your improvisational acting skills.

Is role-playing a “unicorn?” I’ll say again: no. Role-playing happens all the time in a D&D game. Players internalize and identify with their character…they ACT (that is “behave”) as their character would, given the situation and circumstances of the game. They even “talk in character” on occasion, with or without changing the tone of their voice. They do this BECAUSE THEY ARE ENGAGED in the game…so engrossed that they tune out what is going on around them, narrowing their focus to the action at the table.

No flowery narration from the DM required. Just good, hard, solid D&D being thrown in their direction. Keeping the pressure on. So that they (the players) don’t have time to think about how silly the premise of such a game is, with its underground “dungeons” full of gold and goblins.

Yes, praying for “better role-playing” is praying to a false idol. What you should be seeking is better D&D. If you’re the DM, the way you control that is by world-building and running a tight ship of challenging – yet rewarding – scenarios. But if that’s not your bag…well, you can always play with the goofball kids at the shop, I guess. They seem to be on the same page you are.

Sincerely,

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #43

The family's out of the house, and I have a couple-three hours before I need to head to the airport...I thought a little light-heartedness wouldn't be a terrible thing...

Hi JB!

My friends and I are all very new to D&D and we’re having a blast figuring everything out and playing the game. Last session the party got to lvl 3 and had to choose class features. We also found out that our paladin chose very poor stats for his character (he now has 13 str and 8 constitution). Most of the party did some research before choosing stats for their character but not him.

Since we are all very new to the game, as a DM, would you consider giving him an in-game opportunity to change his stats? Like finding a guy that does crazy experiments to people.. or selling his soul to the devil or whatever. Or would you just roll with it?

New Player Chose Very Poor Stats -- What Would You Do?

Dear Friend:

I know there's "no such thing as a dumb question," but this one is pretty close.

I'm going to assume that you play 5E because, if you played 1st edition like myself, you'd know that a character requires certain minimum ability scores to be a particular character class. That's why, for example, you'll never see a 1E paladin with a constitution of 8 (they require 9+) or a charisma score under 17. There are standards for the various professions, expectations that must be met in order for an individual to receive the necessary training in a class. OR...to look at it another way...there is a certain floor of base competence that a character is assumed to have after completing the training necessary to become a 1st level anything. 

[which, to be clear, is not part of the actual play process...when the 1st level character arrives on the scene, that's all part of the PC's unspoken "backstory"]

So when, for example, a player decides to create a paladin, they must meet all the minimum qualifications for the class; this includes: STR 12+, INT 9+, WIS 13+, CON 9+, and CHA 17+. I use Method I (described in the DMG) for determining abilities: roll 4d6 six times, dropping the lowest die roll, and assign scores in any order desired. In my youth, we would do this until we had a set of ability scores we liked; these days, I allow players to roll until they have a set of scores that includes no less than TWO "exceptional" (15+) scores, as per the advice on page 9 (first paragraph) of the PHB. You can see that it's STILL a tall order to get the abilities necessary for a paladin; we've seen a couple in our campaign, though not many.

However, you'll note that a STR 12, CON 9 paladin isn't anything to crow about...and, yet, it's a perfectly viable character. The difference between CON 8 and 9 is nothing more than 5% difference in resurrection/system shock survival; the difference between STR 13 and 12 is nothing more than a 10# difference in weight carried and a 3% difference in the ability to "bend bars" (7% versus 4%? Not much difference there!). BUT VIABLE, nevertheless, because when comparing characters in AD&D, effectiveness is mainly determined by LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE. And 1st level characters are first level characters.

Say your paladin had a strength of 16 instead of 12...yes, they'd have a +1 damage bonus, but their chance to hit would be exactly the same as any other paladin of the same level armed in comparable gear. If the paladin's strength were 17 up to 18/50 (which accounts for literally 50% of all fighter-types with exceptional strength), they'd have a whopping +1 bonus to attack rolls...meaning they'd hit 5% more of the time than the paladin with a strength of 12. That is NOT a huge difference...especially when you can't fall down the stairs of a starter dungeon without hitting a dozen +1 magic weapons along the way.

And let's say you throw that 16 or 17 stat into CON instead: sure, you get a 2-3 more hit points per level. Yay. That equates to taking one more d6 of damage per level of experience (maybe, more like d4). Monster damage tends to scale up pretty fast with level. And poison, petrification, paralysis, and magical curses don't care AT ALL what your total number of hit points are. Sure, it's nice to have a higher chance of surviving your raise dead roll..but your aim, really, is to NOT need to be raised. Equipment (especially magical armor and protective devices) are the much more important factor in a character's survivability. A paladin with a constitution of 9 is going to be more durable than MOST members of the party just on the basis of good armor + saving throw bonus + protection from evil aura...REGARDLESS of constitution.

So don't sweat the ability scores. Other than making the min quals to become a paladin, the player's number one concern w.r.t. abilities should be to try for that +10% x.p. bonus (only possible for paladins with a STR and WIS of 16+). Because THAT adds up, and paladins need a ton of experience to level and...as already stated...effectiveness is mainly determined by level of experience. Well, level and gear...but gear you can't control (magical gear anyway). Get that x.p. bonus if you're able!

Now, of course, this advice mainly applies to 1E groups and if, as I suspect, you're a 5E player, a lot of what I just wrote will mean little or nothing to you. For you (and other 5E players/DMs) I'll drop the following bit of truth:

5E is designed the way it is designed ON PURPOSE.

Embrace it. If the 5E PHB says "any race can be any class with any ability scores," then that's how the game is supposed to be played: as a wild-free-for-all without rhyme or reason. There aren't any "poor stats;" there are just non-optimal characters. And 5E is designed as game that can be played with all sorts of sub-optimal choices. It revels in players choosing whatever their heart desires! That's the appeal! You can play a crippled fighter or a stupid wizard or a half-orc bard or WHATEVER and it's just considered clever or innovative. Embrace the game you're playing!

SO NOW, in direct answer to your questions with question marks:

"As a DM, would you consider giving him an in-game opportunity to change his stats?"

No. So long as he's playing a 'legal' character, I'm fine with it. It's always possible that he might find a ring of wishes or something...this is is D&D after all...but I wouldn't go out of my way to help him change. Jeez...if the player finds he doesn't like the character he just needs to retire it and create a new PC! What's the big deal?

"Or would you just roll with it?"

Roll with it, baby. And if the character buys the farm because of poor scores, chalk it up as a learning experience from which the player can grow and develop...hopefully becoming a competent D&D player!

"What would you do?"

I'd run 1st edition AD&D, in which case non-optimal stats matter very little. However if you mean what would I do as a 5E DM where stats are O So Important to the plethora of die-rolling mechanics that dominate the game? Well, then, I'd let the player suffer the consequences of his ignorance, knowing that he'll come out the other side LESS ignorant and, thus, a better player.

Sincerely,

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #42

Dear JB:

I have been DMing for a few months now in my current campaign I've tried to play at all period for years now as a player or DM and every time the party has fallen apart and I'm not sure I even want to play ever again after so many failed attempts as of right now my players ignore me between sessions, are consistently late, they are critical of basically all the npcs, I have literally NOTHING for their characters and they complain about favoritism towards the only player even trying because they actually give me what I need and doesnt hate the npcs I make them because they arent exactly what I wanted. Is this normal? I dont think it is and if it is I really just dont want to play anymore 

I've tried to start storylines relating to the backstories of all the players and I've been so worried I've been doing something wrong but I have text rp channels set up that they asked for that they dont use and only the one player tries to use (which even that player has entirely stopped using because the others dont respond when he pings them) I've tried asking for what they're wanting to do, what would intrest them for the campaign in case I can add anything to make it a little more enjoyable for them, and I have gotten nothing aside from them complaining they dislike my npcs, they complain about the other player because hes friends with one of the npcs they tried to kill, and say that the characters they have have no reason to be interested in the main quest line of trying to stop the gods from basically destroying everything and when I ask how I can fix that or for more backstory or what I can do to better make npcs for them or even simply is there a particular npc they want I have gotten nothing. 

They both seemed super intrested at first when I first talked to them on roll20 I'm aware and I've been worried it's my fault somehow in me being shit in another way so I've been sort of trying to do most of what they all want I know I'm not a great dm I have a hard tine actually doing voices for the characters since I'm afraid they're going to pick on the voices I do and I'm embarrassed I'm not better at it and I'm not nearly as entertaining as a lot of other dungeon masters I've seen playing

I avoid watching the professionals I mean my friends and shit I basically begged my friend to teach me how to play in highschool they let me sit in on a session but didn't teach me and this is the first time ive done a whole campaign my fiance basically shit a brick when I told him I didnt know who matt mercer is

I Don't Know What I'm Doing Anymore

Dear DM:

I don't think you've EVER known what you're doing.

You have a fiancee, so I assume you're an adult. You have played for years, starting in high school (hard to tell you went to school at all with this horrendous writing), but every time you've tried to run a campaign it's "fallen apart." You state your players have complained about your storylines and your NPCs and that you're embarrassed you're not "entertaining" enough, like the DMs you've (presumably) watched on-line; you state you have a hard time "doing voices."

I'll cut to the chase: your problem (at least with regard to your DMing) is that you don't know how to play Dungeons & Dragons. It's not that you are a "shit DM." I mean, sure, it sounds like you're a long way from DMing in a competent fashion, but you don't even know what the actual game you're playing IS. 

You writing this is like me saying: "I'm a shit rocket scientist." Well, duh...of course I'm a shit rocket scientist, I never went to rocket science school and no one ever taught me how to be a rocket scientist or even the basic principals of rocket science. All I know is that it has something to do with rockets.

D&D, thankfully is NOT rocket science. But it's definitely not what you see on YouTube. The fact that you (at one time) were interested in playing D&D withOUT knowing who Matt Mercer is...well, that's a good thing. That you've since discovered his show, and think that's what D&D is supposed to be is a pity and a damn shame, because now you're just one more idiot operating under under ignorance and falsehood and obtaining bad results because of it.

Evidence: your games keep falling apart.

Now, there are people (5E people) who will tell you, no, you're doing it right, you're shit NOW, but will get better with practice. OR they will tell you that the issue is YOUR PLAYERS and that you need to find BETTER players, players who are aligned with your "style" and who are enthused by your storylines and NPCs, etc.  This is just BAD LUCK or lack of "proper recruiting" or "not setting expectations in Session Zero" or some other such nonsense.

It's nonsense.

You don't know what the hell you're doing because you don't know what the hell D&D is.

It is not a vehicle for storytelling. It is not an improvised TV show that you and your friends put on for each other. If that's your jam, you can do that withOUT the need for dice or rulebooks.

What D&D IS, is a GAME that allows players to experience the thrill of being an adventurer in a fantasy world. That's what it is. That's all it is. That's more than any other game ever made (at least, more than any other game I've ever come across...). 

As a Dungeon Master, you are the caretaker, referee, and facilitator of the game for your players. That's your job as the DM. That is the entirety of your job...and the limits of your responsibility.

You are not responsible for whether or not your players are having "fun." You ARE responsible for presenting the players with a proper game of D&D. And if they enjoy playing D&D (i.e. they want to choose to spend time playing it) and you are presenting them with proper D&D, then they will achieve satisfaction. Which is all that they, the players, should expect to achieve.

YOU, as the DM, derive satisfaction in a different fashion: namely, through the joy of creation and sharing your creations.

This is NOT about you "entertaining" anyone. Get that out of your head. Yes, yes...good DMs DO (often) entertain their players, but that is a BYPRODUCT of running, not the objective. Dungeon Mastering is a performative act, but it is not about being a performer. It's not. It's not about interesting characters, it's not about storylines, it's not about pacing or plot, it's certainly not about drama or "doing voices."

Learn the rules of the game. Run the game. 

Let me ask you this: you say begged your friend in high school to teach you how to play D&D and they let you "sit in on a session" but didn't actually teach you. Have you read the instruction manuals for the game? Have you read the PHB and DMG? Have you read any of the "starter" or "basic" or introductory rule systems?  Or do you just watch "professionals" like Matt Mercer on the internet?

In your first paragraph you wrote:

Is this normal? I dont think it is and if it is I really just dont want to play anymore

No, it's not "normal"...at least, it's not normal if you're a competent Dungeon Master. If you're a competent Dungeon Master running solid D&D, then your players are too busy engaging with the game world and trying to survive to worry about (or care about) the personalities of the NPCs. Because the D&D game is NOT about the NPCs. At all. It is about the players and their actions and reactions within the campagin world that YOU (as the DM) are creating and presenting to them. 

[and, let's be honest: most NPCs are there to die anyway]

So, SINCE it's "not normal," I'll assume that means you still want to play D&D. In which case I'd strongly sugggest: LEARN HOW TO PLAY. Don't watch videos...READ THE INSTRUCTIONS. If you're overwhelmed by the sheer page count of the current Core books (much of which is garbage padding anyway), start with a slimmer volume of higher quality...the Moldvay Basic set, for example (64 pages!). Read that, and run a few games using that system. While doing that, start creating your world...NOT your "storyline" just your world. Don't worry about plots involving "the gods destroying everything" (Jesus H, kid, what the hell...?), just worry about giving adventurers THINGS TO DO. Dungeons to plumb. Monsters to hunt. Treasure to find. You know: things that line up with the basic premise of the game. And while you're getting your feet under you, start reading Gygax's AD&D books, the 1E PHB and DMG. And when you're ready, transition your campaign world to an Advanced game.

Don't worry...you'll be all right.

Sincerely, 

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #41

And here I thought these had run out...

Dear JB:

The consensus seems to be that at most you should have outlines and like maybe a half page of notes for your sessions, because “you never know what your players are gonna do!” But the control freak in me is having trouble with all the what ifs that’s surround that Oh I want to write a character that is sly and cunning and slowly the players realize over time they’re not an ally, but what if they just say no to the quests? I want to write a large over arching theme that is happening in a large part of the world, like epic shit, what if they go the other way? I want this item to be special, and the grail quest to get it to be important, and the story ties together, but they decided to create a spa vacation setting and run a business Like it’s easy to just say “just improv bro!” But I find in real life it just doesn’t go that way. Voices, motivations, rolls, dungeons, how do you improv shit that takes time to prepare? Or is it just “well it was a pirate ship, now it’s a village” but everything else stays the same?

Is Most Of DMing Improv

Deat IMODI:

There are DMs who swear by their ability to run a game session entirely improvised...and I'm talking a dungeon crawl (no map! just constructed out of their head on the fly!). That's not really how the game was designed to be played, however...if you read the instructions provided in the game manuals, you'll usually see steps like #1 consider theme/scenario, #2 create map, #3 stock map with encounters. I would apply these general steps regardless of whether or not I was running a dungeon, a "wilderness crawl," or some sort of intrigue/social conflict...a "map" can refer to relationships (i.e. connections between NPCs) and/or scenes as well as "physical" locations in the game world.

But, generally speaking, the game always comes back to dungeons. That's why the word is part of the game's title.

Actual play is, of course, fluid...you don't know what choices your players are going to make during the course of the game, and you (as the DM) must be prepared to adapt and respond to their actions. This does require a certain amount of improvisation, but the preparation you do before-hand...the map you create, the notes on what encounters have been stocked...gives you a framework within which to operate. If you know that a half-dozen goblins are throwing dice behind the dungeon door, you have a pretty good idea of what the PCs might hear if they listen at said door...or just kick it in...or scry it and decide to disguise themselves with invisibility or magic...or whatever. If you know that Mayor So-And-So is a reluctant (if murderous) werewolf trying desperately to hide the secret of his curse from the town over which he holds sway (and which he secretly hunts at night), you'll have a pretty good idea of how he reacts to players investigating his predations, thanks to your knowledge of his motivations and the resources he can marshal to help keep his secret.

As the DM, you are creating situations for the players to explore. The more effort you put into developing the game world, the more opportunities you provide for your players.

FOR EXAMPLE: I wrote a tournament adventure for Cauldron that involves a trek upriver (to a dungeon) from a small fishing village. Did I bother to write anything/prep anything for the fishing village? No. So what does this mean if the players decide "Hey, can we go talk to the shopkeeper before we leave for the dungeon?" I'll say, sure, what do you want to buy? And they say "What does he look like, how does he talk, does he have any rumors, blah-blah-blah?" And I'll say something like:

He's a gruff middle-age shopkeeper. He's happy to chat (if you're buying stuff), but he doesn't seem to possess any info pertinent to your quest.

And THAT'S IT. I don't create a character; I don't create a "voice" for this NPC. I certainly don't carry on a conversation 'in character' with the players. I would treat any other NPC they seek out (the tavern owner, the village priest, the local herb-woman...whatever) in the same manner. Sure these NPCs exist in the game, but there's nothing to prep because they aren't pertinent to the situation...the adventure...being presented by the Dungeon Master.

And, honestly, I don't really find this kind of tangential, "off topic" chatter showing up at my table anyway. After all, I run AD&D, and I make sure anyone who sits down at the table knows and understands what we're playing. If they haven't played AD&D before, I always give them a short spiel, something like:

"So, we're playing AD&D here. Your character is an adventurer in a fantasy world full of magic and monsters. Your objective is to find fortune (treasure) and fame without getting killed...usually by going to perilous places (dungeons) that are too dangerous for normal individuals who don't have the skills your character possesses. You'll have to work together with your fellow players...as a team...if you want to be successful."

Something like that. Then I lay out the current situation (the adventure scenario). Even new players seem to "get it" and get down to business...withOUT the need to turn the session into a "spa day."

But I can grok that this info probably isn't that helpful to you IMODI. You're worried about how a (fake) character's personality develops over time. You're concerned with creating "large over-arching themes" and "epic shit." It sounds a lot like you want to write a fantasy novel; perhaps you should go do that instead of playing D&D (you're far more likely to satisfy that particular creative urge through actual storytelling if you don't have to deal with the loose cannons that are your average player). 

Here's the truth of D&D play...of real D&D play, mind you, not the wannabe scripted-reality TV play that takes its cues from the Matt Mercer circuit. The TRUTH is that none of your "epic" situation/scenario concepts MEAN ANYTHING to the players at the table. Like, ZERO. If they are of the "old school" persuasion like myself, then they are simply trying to play the game to the best of their ability (i.e. surviving, finding loot, leveling up, etc.). And if they are of this current "new school" variety, they're only concerned with their own individual character, i.e. whether their needs are being met with regard to attention and spotlight gathering. Your "story arc" only means anything to them inasmuch as it gives them a way and reason to perform and stroke their own ego. Which is a pretty sorry way to play D&D (in my opinion), but there are a lot worse ways for people to be spending their time so...have at it.

SO, regardless of what edition you play, prep what you need to run the scenario you've got, and then be prepared to roll with the punches. That is the way of the DM. Don't worry so much about making things "epic;" D&D happens at a small scale. It zooms in on individuals, their individual choices and actions...and the results of those actions. All that "epic" stuff? That's just background noise (if that, even). You can decide whether or not any kind of "story" got told AFTER the game session is over.

Sincerely,

JB