DM Enlightenment thread

"You are truly the wisest wizard cat"
Definitely this, skim through many modules and find things that catch your attention. Steal it for your game.
I recommend the One Page Dungeons, having a few of those printed up with an encounter chart for your level will allow you to fill in for an underprepped evening.

When designing your own encounters and traps, its ok if you don't have a solution made beforehand, your players might surprise you and find unique and interesting ways to solve problems.

What, in your opinion, is the minimum requirements that an encounter needs to meet to be mechanically interesting?

I once had demonically possessed Orogs who had a "cleric" behind them casting demonic flavored bless and spiritual weapon. I liked the flavor of the encounter and it fit with the plot, but...was it a mechanically interesting combat without the demon stuff?

Well, really that depends. If you'd taken out all fluff and context, would it have been fun from a pure gameplay persepctive? Did the players had to think of a strategy, or was it just "move forward, full attack" ad nauseam? That's always what I measure it by in the end - how many choices were the players really making?

Like I said, though, I only consider an encounter being really interesting necessary if it *isn't* plot relevant, as a means to keep it engaging. Afterall, if the players are already invested thanks to plot and character, then, well, that already fills the job, doesn't it?

(Although, obviously it's ideal for *every* enciounter to be mechanically engaging. But some systems make this easier than others - Pathfinder is hard, for instance, whilst 4e does most the work for you)

Also, I apply a similar mindset RE: none combat encounters, just change "mechanically interesting" to "entertaining". If it's busywork, don't roll, and so forth.

>I've been trying my damndest to incorporate loot that isn't just a +1 sword or clear upgrade item for the party cleric. Giving them unusual magic or mundane items can sometimes be the most rewarding.

100% agree with this, and I'll add on the caveat that I genuinely don't see a problem with throwing the party some really powerful items every now and then. Our GM gave our level 6 PF party an item that can cast Control Weather at-will, requiring only a Use Magic Device check, as well as a couple of others.

You only really need to consider in-party balance, afterall. After that, the sky's the limit.

Ah, I see. My players did try to think and strategize during that fight. They blasted spells and ranged attacks at the cleric even though it meant taking hits from the Orogs.

Record your sessions. Listening to yourself GM really lets you see your strengths and weaknesses in a way you normally can't. Plus you can get hypercritical at yourself in a way nicer players won't.

>There's nothing wrong with sticking to archetypes/"cliches" for NPCs. They became classics for a reason, and they help make sure that you have a wider variety of characters.
>They also make a great launching off point for once an NPC becomes more prevalent, and gives your players expectations that you can follow or subvert.

This. Players aren't generally going to pick up on subtle hints at your NPC's deep and complex character the first time they meet him, they're going to remember "oh yeah, that kind of shady guy" or "oh, the femme fatale type". It's an immediate anchor that provides a nice baseline to take wherever you want, particularly when an NPC unexpectedly becomes a party favourite.

To reduce meta knowledge of rolls--rolling Bluff/Deception to lie to players, rolling sneak/stealth against them, etc.--and try printing out a sheet filled with prerolled d20 rolls (=RANDBETWEEN(1-20) on Excel).

This allows you to speed things up and not give your PCs a tell as to your NPC's true intentions.

"No" is your enemy. Telling your players "No" to their ideas is a great way to grind their flow of ideas and fun to a grinding halt.

I'm not saying you should allow your players to do anything. "Yes, and", "Yes, but" and even "No, but" are all acceptable. Never "No".

"No" is perfectly acceptable if they say something absolutely retarded though.

>Choose the interpretation that make the most sense.
We are literally playing games of pretend, so if the first interpretation you come up with doesn't make sense, change your assumptions until you have something that does make sense. For example, the seasoned rogue who has picked a hundred locks before suddenly being a clumsy idiot who forgets how to pick locks every time he rolls low would be a stupid story that does not make sense. Instead, there must be something special about the lock that would make it difficult for the rogue to unlock. Perhaps the mechanisms within it are particularly complicated, or it is a design that the rogue has never seen before. This is a story that makes more sense and will be more satisfactory to you and your players. Why such a complex lock was found on the peasant's shed is a mystery in itself, but you are a good DM, you'll figure something out. Don't be afraid to let the dice do the storytelling, you will find that sometimes they have some pretty interesting ideas.

You would think this would be obvious advice, but you would be surprised how often people get wrapped up in what they decided their interpretation is that they forget it is to change it.

If it were a mundane thing he was already a super expert at he wouldn't be rolling anyway, RIGHT?
>Dice frame things that have challenge or consequences
>Everything else is narrative

You've never actually GMed, have you? If you never say "no", you're going to end up with whining, retarded manchildren players who try to play brinksmanship games because they know that if they stick to their guns long enough, you'll give in for whatever idea they pulled out of their asscracks.

If it will never work, say no. If they repeat, get on with "no, and leave my table".

Glimpses of someone else's story.

Sometimes this takes the form of pic related highlighting that the NPCs do not exist solely for the pleasure of your quests and infodumps.

Sometimes the party has messed with poor NPC Bob, and I use roll20's /as command to have "Bob's Player" lodge a meta complaint, or express confusion as to what's going on.

Well, obviously, because he was rolling, there was a chance of failure. It's explaining WHY there is a chance of failure that is the issue, not IF.

Get better players user. I'm sorry if you can't.

I've never thought of this specifically, but I usually roll in secret using an RNG or use common sense.
"No, but" is essential. For crit failures, instead of 'You fail completely and dead end', I prefer, 'You succeed in a way that makes you really wish you hadn't'. The Emnity Clause is possibly the best idea to ever come out of Burning Wheel:
>A specific case of Say Yes, or Roll The Dice taken from Burning Wheel's Circles subsystem. In a situation where the player wants to find a character thus far unknown. In Burning Wheel, you test your circles attribute; A failed roll results in finding the character, but for some reason the new character has enmity toward the PCs.
So, say, when you roll a failed skill check: you find your back-alley salesman, but he's charging triple because he knows you need what he's selling. Are you really going to fight him in the middle of the black market and get caught here by guards?
Or when you're searching for your sword after it's fallen off a ledge, you find it. The problem is, someone else has found it, too, and they have every reason to not believe it's yours, because it's expensive and cool.
If they want to do something retarded, suggest an alternate, less retarded approach. People often get caught up in wacky ideas due to playing a fantasy game that they forget mundane solutions to problems. If they still want to push hard but still possible odds, say they can try, but remind them that the odds are stacked against them to an absurd degree.
If they want to try something actually impossible and can't explain how it could maybe work in this specific situation, then remind them of their other options. If they aren't reasonable enough to accept that there are some things that just can't be done, they shouldn't be at the table.

Sometimes, when there's a mystery of some kind, you'll find yourself thinking "damn, my player's guess is such a good idea, I wish that was really the right answer". Protip: You're the GM. You can make it the correct answer.

It'll make the player feel smart for getting it, and it'll be a cooler story if it was that good an idea. Of course, you might need to make some further adjustments down the line, so do think carefully of what kind of ripple effect it might have.

How would you guys handle the PCs being at a casino? I was thinking it might depend on what they're doing, blackjack could just be played directly as could any sort of bet as simple as a coin flip or roll off while something like poker would be a series of deception and insight rolls.

I had a player interrogating a confused and sick old peasant couple because he couldn't accept that as peasants they had a very limited view of what the town mystics were doing.

I've GM'd before, just not for the whiny children you seem to be characterizing.

It's give and take. Games I run for players that think they can play me don't last very long at all.

How important is the act of gambling to the game? If you're in a "standard" heroic adventure, you probably don't want to bog down too much playing mini-games. If it's got skill, do some sort of gambling/perception/whatever opposed check. If it's pure luck, just flip a coin. Good results mean you get X amount of money, bad results mean you lose it.

But generally, I wouldn't want more than one or two rolls for a night of gambling, unless the act itself is important for some reason.

Well they'd be in a fae casino where they can bet pretty much anything and win really strange things. One character would definitely want to try to get info on somebody (they got a magic item which has negative and addictive properties in said casino but also lost most of their memories from within it). It would largely be a last ditch plan to get info, favors, or items they need.

Alternatively, you find yourself thinking "damn, my player's idea is way off and not what I was going for at all, I hope they don't pursue that." It is important to remember that just because an idea is not correct does not mean that it is not useful. Perhaps the wrong idea is just a piece of the bigger puzzle, or otherwise going down the wrong path reveals clues that lead them to the right path, sometimes by complete happenstance.

To go even further beyond, you don't even need a right answer prepared, all you need is a hook. This is what I've been trying to do. I don't begin thinking of solutions until the players commit to a quest; the only reason I bother is so that I have something to give them if they get stuck. Even then, the solutions I come up with are imperfect, sometimes undesirable, I fully expect my players to reject the solutions and use them as springboards to come up with better ideas.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

The stakes of the gambling are ultimately unrelated to the game being gambled on itself. Whether you're playing for your souls against a critical piece of info, or for a tiny amount of copper that would get you watery beers at a shit tavern, a game of craps is a game of craps.

And unless your players are really into mini-games, you probably don't want to bog down too much on the game they're playing with the fae itself. Just do something that's over in one roll would be my recommendation.

That was my plan if they wanted to play something longer like poker. I figured anything as simple as blackjack (a single round) or a roll off could be played out to let the players feel as if they had more control. I have a feeling that they'll enjoy having some minigames.

I really like this idea, instead of the stealthy ranger suddenly barging in like a fool, a previously unseen deer bolts from nearby altering the enemy to his presence

Seconded - I find it helps to remember that the dice roll is the element of random chance, and when someone fails at something because of bad luck, we don't blame it on them, do we?

So sure, sometimes it is just them fucking up, but things like an unfortunately placed branch snapping a Stealth check, or smoke drifting in just the wrong place to see through with a Perception check - those things can really help failures seem like less of a "your character is terrible" moment.

How about d20 + lowest stealth vs X+[hours rested]

X can go from 5 to 10 depending on the zone.

Twist in my next post, just a heads-up.

Through decades of DMing, I first came to understand the extremely important and revelatory fact that nothing necessarily has to be set in stone.
- Every great idea your players have can be stolen

- Everything you prepare and don't get to use can be put somewhere else later down the line, with a minimum of retooling

- If something is going "the wrong way" or seems like it won't be as fun, you can arrange all chess pieces on the board that the players aren't currently holding in their hands, as long as the new board state you make is "legal" and makes basic sense.

- Every die roll they don't see can be fudged to make everything turn out more fun for them

This was fucking revolutionary, and is what took me from "meh GM" to "good GM".

HOWEVER;

>Conserve detail. If you've worked hard on your setting, you deserve to be proud. But don't bombard players with information unless it's relevant to them. If players want to know more, they will seek it out

>Keep exacting details to a minimum in building setpieces and events. The less written in stone (when/where/how they are), the more easily they can be adapted to the playing field of the players

>Assess the priorities of your players and shift the focus of what you have accordingly. If you have elements of exploration, interaction, and action, find what it is they gravitate to and put the spotlight there

>Run a game that you would want to play in. Passion trickles down to the players

>Pic related

Later I came to realize that while useful, it was also wrong in some very serious ways.
Some things DO have to be set in stone, and it's not always obvious which ones.

- Your players scrutinize what happens and why you had it happen the way it did, whether they consciously know it or not. You've got many several players, each with a lifetime of experience with entertainment media, and each of them has a chance at any given time to be able to tell (or subconsciously sense) when you're working your GM magic to create the perfect fairy tale storyline. Whenever this happens, they lose some of their faith that the game has real challenge, and that their decisions have true consequences. (Luckily, this is reversible over time.)

- Don't let the game world be a story. Movies, comic books, and other authored media is predictable in ways that reality is not, but it isn't as jarring when you merely spectate it. When you make the choices yourself, however, even when agasp with the marvel of the tale you're being told, it feels subtly and lastingly wrong whenever the world warps to turn everything you do into an epic adventure.
An adventure is being described to you, but you're not fully taking part in it.
You COULD be going on an adventure - one that's yours, and that's believable; something you can basically only do in a tabletop RPG - but instead you're delegated to simply listening to another author tell you yet ANOTHER prefabricated story. Either fully, or in part.
Reality is imperfect. It has anticlimaxes, and not everything always happens at exactly the right moment - you don't always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need, and it's up to you to make the best of it. Sometimes the game needs to feel real.

(Continued)

- The best challenge is real, and is something you can own. The fullness of victory is only as fully raw and real as how "real" the player feels the challenge was.
We all know that you don't just stumble upon the solution to every major problem in life - and the best part about conquering the challenges of real life (when you manage to do so) is that you get to own them - you had to claw and cry and bleed and sweat your way through; every resource, opportunity, or idea you exploited, every setback you endured, and every choice you made, fully mattered and the world didn't magically give you just what you needed, the moment you needed it the most. If it did, life would be a subtle kind of hell.
If you monkey with a challenge and a player notices (and you don't necessarily know what they might notice,) then you've robbed the depth of their victory's joy.

If you use random encounters in your game, give them some nuance instead of immediately gunning for combat. My favorite way of doing this is adding a second die roll that gives a general gist of what the primary state of the encounter is, from tracks and remains to hunts, patrols, looting, or possibly fighting something else. Stumbling across bloodied carcasses and owlbear tracks, a scouting party of injured orcs retreating from a room, or a mexican standoff between goblins and kobolds with a shiny treasure in the center is far more interesting than "You see monster X. Roll for initiative."
Don't fall into the trap of monsters being sacks of XP and loot. Give them some personality and players will take interest.

You truly are the wisest wizard cat

a terrible idea in practice. the least constrained player will always act on the side of finality to "solve" the problem, railroading the entire group in the process. Like he cares about the Mage's spell budget, get real. Then he'll ask how much xp he got for doing it singlehandedly.

Rolling in secret is awful, especially if you aren't on the absolute best terms with the players. Announcing that one player did well and the other did poorly after a secret roll is sure to cause suspicions of favoritism, especially if the player apparently favored is a girl.

>suspicions of favoritism
As always, the best advice for GMs is "don't play with immature people".

A good idea, but occasionally a player will pull a "Ackshually,..." and then you're screwed.

I'm not in this conversation, but this alleged solution brings up an interesting question: is immediately shutting down the game at the first sign of "metagaming" really the best strategy? Can the game be salvaged? Are you really willing to throw away all your preparation?

no kids allowed?

Not all children are immature, but most are.

Mostly game philosophy:
When not in combat, use the results of die rolls to move them one step closer to or further from success - AKA, draw it out and build a story. They don't fix the thing with a single roll, that first roll tells them what they need to fix it, then they can start fixing it. Or they can't fully translate the ancient script, but the smart one can figure out what script it is and where to go for translation resources. It's effectively what you do with rolls in combat: each one moves you one step closer or further from making the damn thing not able to kill you.
Skill rolls are for when the character is improvising or under stress, not for proving competence. They have the skill, they are competent. The raw die roll shows circumstances and what they had to work with, then you add the stat and skill bonuses to show their efforts.
Encounters are interesting situations the players could get involved in, not something trying to kill them. Rolling bandits could be anything from "bandits attack" to "the locals think you're bandits" or even "the local lord sent a henchman to the road to warn of bandit attacks. Adventurers wanted". See Never prepare a plotline, prepare a villain's plans. Also, don't plan on "enter at A, go through B to C to D to E, exit at F" adventures - instead prepare what I call Flashpoints: Flash A gets them rolled in, and could lead to B, C, D, or E; or they could even skip past them all and deal with F. But each one inbetween weakens F, and affects the others. They also give F time to prepare...
Know Your Tropes: if any one tries be genre savvy and figure out the metagame, switch it around. Plans get changed based on how intelligent the people going against your villain are - and if that intelligence leads them into a trap, all the better. Monsters turn out to be tougher, or have different weaknesses (the troll stole a ring that made them immune to fire is a great one).
(cont)

Unless you're completely blatant about it any party can be railroaded and the players will be completely unaware.

Even if you give them a complete a total sandbox with total control and agency, they're still going to whine that you're railroading them if something they don't like happens.

So, stop caring, and find actual adults to play with.

Also, don't recruit from Veeky Forums, there's a reason most of these guys don't have games.

I've seen 13-year olds that are much more mature than a handful of the twenty-somethings I know. Take that however you wish.

>Skill rolls are for when the character is improvising or under stress, not for proving competence
This is one reason I don't understand why DnD 5e abandoned taking 10 or 20. I've broken my picks or gotten them stuck in occasions where I was under no or next-to-no stress, simply because I rolled that 5% chance.

>the least constrained player will always act on the side of finality to "solve" the problem
My players have proven this wrong several times. Sure, if you make That Guy the least constrained player, then he's going to railroad. Most other players take into account the fact that they don't want the other PCs to hate them, and this affects their decision making. And some players will simply put the party's needs above their own and concede, only to badmouth the NPC backhandedly later, which makes for good roleplaying.

>Like he cares about the Mage's spell budget
It's not about the scrolls or the budget, dude. It's about the relationship that the Mage has formed with the merchant. The Mage player is likely to say "Awww not my merchant friend!" and try to convince the Fighter and rest of the party to let him go free. Plus the NPC might be able to help out the party later. Watching players try to persuade each other at the table is the whole fun of this idea.

>Then he'll ask how much xp he got for doing it singlehandedly
This makes me think that you are definitely playing with a "That Guy." Try making That Guy the one who builds a quick relationship with an NPC and watch him vehemently defend his new ally and try to pull them into the good graces of the party.

Look into different, more archaic games - why the fuck would the Fae play Blackjack? If it's a game of chance, consider Two Up, or even just "rolling the bones" - dice games have always been popular. Have them aim for a target number - seventeen on a D10 and 2D6, and whoever is closest (but not over) wins. Look at the I Ching, choose six patterns to be "winning" throws, and have your players throw sticks against a number of NPCs. Snail/toad/cockroach racing - get some actual cockroaches and have them race.

Shit, I'm sure you can think of some more.

WotC and Hasbro don't care about creating or publishing a quality game. They're the EA of the traditional gaming market. They know they can survive on market saturation and brand recognition alone.

To be fair, that strategy is paying off, especially with the massive amount of pop-culture exposure D&D and MtG have gotten lately. Being referenced in sitcoms and viewed as hip, trendy, and cultured/educated has done wonders for sales.

Samefagging in case you missed it.

(cont)
Give XP for players deliberately bypassing encounters (with character knowledge). This gives them incentive to think intelligently and be engaged in the game world.
You might go old school and also give XP for gold earned and spent.
XP for social encounters and skill challenges also gives them incentive to do more than combat (for D&D style XP for this, count it as the typical CR for their level, then adjust based on how well it moved them closer to their overall goal - a small step forward can be 10-20%. Using a percentage of the total XP required for their level also works if you want them to go more social than combat).
Never be afraid to improvise rules - it's your game, just be consistent. Learn the ways the dice roll in your system, and what targets the players can typically hit. With that in mind, you can improvise anything.

Is there a way to handle mildly dysfunctional people without the game becoming a clusterfuck? Personally I'd rather not characterize them all as "good" or "bad".

That's a good tip. Thank you.

Isolate them and take steps to prevent them from reproducing.

Or, just be a mature and reasonable adult yourself, and make it a point to keep the majority of your players the same. One manchild is manageable. Two make things difficult. Three is a nightmare.

You're going to have to define "mildly dysfunctional". My definition may differ.

Set up a quick and simple way to signal them that they need to calm down - a word, a card you can tap/raise, or even a emoticon if you're online.

Don't be afraid to go "ok guys, going to need you all to slow down so I can keep up and keep the game moving" and "first let's see what (other character) has to say before we come back to (other character)". Both have worked well with me getting players to pull themself up and recognise they needed to settle down.

Talk to them outside the game. 'I'm happy to see you excited and really into the game, don't forget to give others time to shine'. Try to set up their character in a supportive role to other characters when it comes to story beats.

I do this for my players. I expect and encourage them to do the same for me - when I get too loud, or if I talk too fast. Generally I'm good at catching myself as I'm doing it, but there's always that one or two times where they know they can quickly get me to take a second to reset and start again.

my mom did actually get cancer, so maybe there's something to these
"You are truly the wisest wizard cat"

For 5e, discovered this by trying to drastically scale down Princes of Elemental Evil, if you want a decent challenging low level boss, you can take a monster of appropriate CR (a medium challenge), then give it 1 legendary resistance and one of two Lair actions roughly equivalent to a cantrip or first level spell, with of course the name filed off and damage types changed to something appropriate.

The most enjoyable and memorable fights are ones where they have to deal with a recurring obstacle while still fighting it.

Air elemental Banshee (that now does sonic damage) with a vacuum pull every turn, to get the back row in screech range, so you have to focus on micromanaging your distance or get possibly get oneshot? Fun.
Gorgon with animate object and the statues of previous victims standing everywhere so you have to deal with them while fighting her(scaled down by making fewer statues at once)? Fun.
Salamander that creates bonfires, which then start to shoot fire at you like those cursed zelda torches, so you have to focus on putting out the torches in addition to fighting it? Fun.
Water Weird in a room of twoinch deep water, that creates icy terrain, hits you with ray of frost slows, and regularly dips back into the water to pop up some distance away, making the entire fight one of trying to frantically chase it down while you slip, slide, and trudge around in an otherwise smallish room? Fun.

There's a lot to learn from vidya if you squint. No enjoyable boss is just "hit it til it dies, while it tries to hit you til you die."

As another form I'm also trying to think of ways to weaken enemies to reward clever strategic thinking, without making them too easy if they solve it, but not too deadly if they don't. Games assure solving by making them super obvious (glowing, etc), but I want rewarding Aha! moments instead.

he said mature. If a 9 year old is more mature than his 25 year old competition, you take the 9 year old.
You'd be surprised how many times I've seen that be the case. It's more to do with raising than age.

Passive checks ARE taking 10. Any time you are doing a task over and over again, with no particular attention to any given attempt, is a passive check.

walking down a corridor looking for traps? Passive check, bonus+10. Stopping and inspecting the ground immediately in front of you because this door looks mighty suspicious? Active check, roll a d20.

Trying to ram a door with your shoulder? Active check, roll a d20. Knowing you're not gonna get it first try and instead hoping to eventually splinter the wood enough the latch it gives way? Passive check, +10.

>to reward clever strategic thinking, without making them too easy if they solve it, but not too deadly if they don't.

I've had this backfire on me so many times. My players just want a simple romp, I'm the one who likes strategy.

Maybe I should make some shitty monsters and try to beat the party with them using only tactics. I think they'd resent me if I won, though. But I'd have fun, I know that.

Huh. I must have missed that part. That's very helpful, user. Thanks.

maybe you do that but the monsters don't win at the end for some made up reason. it woud be a hair raising battle.

"Learn to improvise."

Players feel a lot more invested if they feel like they can alter your story, and you have to do a lot less prep work if you learn to roll with the punches. That's not to say that "blar blar everybody is railroading" or whatever, just, learning to improvise is the greatest gift I ever picked up as a GM, and is the one piece of advice I try and pass on all the time.

Some games can be salvaged, but no game is better than a bad game.

Plus, I never throw away my preparation. I can use what I make for a different group that's more willing to play earnestly.

It also helps that I improvise like 60-70% of my material

You truly are the wisest wizard cat

I generally advise people to just ghost and stop inviting players who exhibit any remotely clear signs of trouble, but if you've made up your mind then, well, it depends.

What follows is basically the full monty of how to deal with erratic people when you absolutely have to. Keep in mind that this is for when you think the unspoken rules of common sense and social decency might not hold:

Talk to the problem player between games, when the other players aren't around.
- Be concerned about the issue, not confrontational.
- Make sure to explain clearly what the problem behaviour is, while wrapping it in a subjective I-statement like "I feel that (...)" or "It seems to me that (...)", or "I think I've noticed that maybe"
- Don't talk about the problem behaviour as if it's a trait they have like "edgelord" or "low attenton span". Always describe it as "something they did." Avoid anything remotely like name-calling.
- Make sure to listen respectfully and thoroughly to their answers before responding at all. Even if they say multiple things you disagree with, just try to remember the most important ones and let as much slide as you can for now.
- Be on your best behavior, even if they aren't; keep your cool and regain it whenever necessary.
- If they flip their shit or cross a line, or say something to you that gets you riled up, then tell them you're gonna need some time to think about it, and you will continue the conversation at a later date.
- If they're stubborn about admitting to the problem behaviour, you can humour them by giving them an "out" that still makes it clear that the behaviour they're denying is unacceptable. E.g. "You know what, I think you're right; I misunderstood what was going on, so forget I said anything. I just misinterpreted the situation because of how much I dislike overly edgy or zany player characters at my table. See ya next week."

>If a 9 year old is more mature than his 25 year old competition, you take the 9 year old.
See, that's what I keep saying, but the jury never fucking agrees with me!

This thread has a lot of sound advice, so I'd like to ask a question on how to approach a game issue.
How do I challenge (or affirm) a player character's beliefs when the pc's belief is that large government inevitably leads to oppression, especially in a setting where the downfall of said large governments have thrown the world back to the bronze age and the fantastical creatures that they held back roam the world to pillage at will, without turning it into a political firestorm?
I am stumped on how to do this without opening a can of worms, and apparently this belief is is an important principle to the player (character).

Honestly, the recommendation I would give is to give that character an opportunity to peer into the inner workings of governments. Don't go out of your way to change how they're depicted for his or her benefit, just give the opportunity. Maybe they are tyrranical. Maybe they're not. Maybe they're just kind of clueless, scrabbling desperately for solutions to insoluble problems. Give them an opportunity to see (at least a little) what it was like in the "Good old days" for good or ill.

But describe, don't preach. Make it realistic and of a tone with the rest of your work.

When you're trying to do the investigate the mystery thing, follow the rule of three. Each clue should exist in three seperate places in the world.

For example, the mystery who killed Mr. Body, where and what with. The bloddy knife should exist at the botom of the well. Anyone skilled in anatamoy, or phoresnsc or something like that can examamine Mr. Body and determine he was stabed to death. One of the NPC's at the dinner party just happens to be a Doctor with that skill set.

Three ways to find the same information, so no matter what avenue your PC's take to dig up clues they're should have a good chance to run into them.

Now, theres always the case of you thinking A + B = C and they think A+B=AB... so I usualy *also* go with three clues all pointing to the same conclusion... but of course that gets exponentially more difficult and you end up trimming shit out as they find the stuff one way or the other so they don't get TOO inundated with repeat information... it's all about familiarity with your players and how the react to shit at that point.

>>If your players are fond of taking long rests in hostile territory, roll a d20 for every hour they sleep. On a 1, the party is attacked by a minor or moderate threat that disturbs their rest. This way their rest is disturbed by chance and not DM fiat.

8 * (5%) = X% chance of being attacked every single night.

Solve for X, and then determine whether the frequency of monster attacks is justified or unacceptable. Explain your reasoning.

>tfw one of my players is an honest to god police detective and sees through every mystery I try to throw his way in an hour, tops.

Oh jesus this would probably shatter me. My players tell me I'm fine, but I am waaay to hard on myself.

If it's the character, then have them find a small community that thrives under a leader who is competent and genuinely concerned with providing health, safety (including a justice system), and defense for their people - highborn and lowborn - in return for taxation.

A talented and benevolent sovereign ruler in a small and uncomplicated community is pretty much an undeniable sweet spot when it comes to forms of government.
Its problems have nothing to do with oppression, and everything to do with stability. When the ruler dies, and whenever a general/high priest/other powerful individual is dissatisfied, there's a chance that things go haywire. There are ways around it, like producing good heirs (both in the sense of being well-trained and skilled, and being morally/ethically good) and trying to adapt a culture of contentedness rather than competition, but they are mitigating factors at best, and both come with a cost.

>Listening to my own voice/

Oh no. No no no. No. Fuck no.

Not that user but moreover, having the players interact with the ruler often and portraying him/her as a down-to-earth, competent person may help quite a bit.

>Listening to yourself GM

Hey, my character is now a half-devil/half-angel demigod. I'm going to fly up into the sky and cast a mass mind control spell on the entire world to create a perfect army we will invade other planes with. Also I'm going to succeed at every possible check for any of these things. Cool?

Of course it's not cool, and there's no "no, but..." that will satisfactorily resolve this without actually just being a "no" that you're not willing to call a "no" because you have some stupid rule you think you're supposed to stick to.

>I'm not saying you should allow your players to do anything. "Yes, and", "Yes, but" and even "No, but" are all acceptable. Never "No".

The millennial laissez-faire parenting model, applied to DMing. This is modern gaming, ladies and gentlemen.

>2017
>Believing it's the GM's job to be a good parent to his players

Yes, modern gaming indeed

No, but you can get there eventually if you find the right magics.

In a role playing game, generally speaking, not being able to do stuff is less fun than being able to do stuff.
The only time you should be told you can't do stuff is when there's a good reason to.
In other words, if in doubt, default to some variation of "yes".
If not in doubt, then you already know the answer, which might be "no".

It's just a heuristic that produces a better gameplay experience on average.

>Hey, my character is now a half-devil/half-angel demigod. I'm going to fly up into the sky and cast a mass mind control spell on the entire world to create a perfect army we will invade other planes with.

No, but if you create a character according to the rules in the book, you can work towards that. I'm sure it'll be amazing when that moment finally happens.

>Also I'm going to succeed at every possible check for any of these things. Cool?

Yes, but only as long as you actually succeed on the rolls to do so. I'm really digging your confidence, though.

>MILLENIALS ARE RUINING THE DUNGEON MASTERING INDUSTRY

Depends on the individual situation.
Some shit is just flat out impossible, or beyond the bounds that I set as GM.
I say no to things like that straight away.
If it is possible, I will tell them that they need to put work to it, or readjust it to fit within the game's parameters.

>2017
>Not having your players refer to you as daddy

Those are both just "no." "No, but..." implies compromise, you can't just use the words without any of the meaning behind why you'd use those words in the first place.

Some would argue that you can't just use an extraordinarily-specific example as a strawman to counter a generalist philosophy. but what do I know; I'm just a baby.

>8 * (5%) = X% chance of being attacked every single night.
That would make it a 0.4% chance to be attacked every night. Wut? You just gave the probability of being attacked every hour of every night, also known as the probability of rolling 1, 8 times in a row.

You mean (19/20)^8. Which would give you the percentage chance of NOT being attacked at night Which is 66.3%. Then to find the percent chance of being attacked at least once per night you just subtract that from 1, which gives you 33.7%

1/3 chance of being attacked makes taking a long rest in or near enemy territory somewhat risky, so players can't trivialize a dungeon by sleeping in every room. Plus if they decide to take a short rest, then you can simply roll 1d20 for a 5% chance of being interrupted.

>Solve for X, and then determine whether the frequency of monster attacks is justified or unacceptable. Explain your reasoning.
This is obnoxious and you should unironically kill yourself.