Hey old farts of gaming (like me):

...

I like it.
It's completely possible to take new people and train them or find time with friends. People will make time if the game is good enough, kids or no kids.
This is true, but games-with-friends are still in the majority, I feel.

It's just that they aren't documented or really mentioned. You never hear stories of "yeah, we got together with our friends again for a sensible fun game the other day." It's always the disaster stories that dominate the conversation.

>Go to /gdg/ and count how many copies of the same game are being worked on.
True. But Veeky Forums is still the best source of problems on the internet. People are always having the same issues, and places like /gdg/ and other threads let you see what they are and work to solve them.

Without reinventing the wheel, ideally. There's more to life than mechanics.
>They are also getting into the hobby for the wrong reasons.
Ok, oh mighty gatekeeper.
>Due to the Geek Social Fallacies, RPG players are accepting anyone who wants to play and ostracizing anyone who mentions that this might be a bad idea.
Honestly, I see the opposite. Players are more discerning these days, and more willing to talk about tone, theme, content, and goals before a game starts. There's very little "show up for D&D tomorrow" and getting either horror or heroics. It's much more sensibly discussed.
> leading to less serious, less fulfilling games that resemble a game of Cards Against Humanity more than a game of D&D.
So either don't play in those games or show people the True Way by running good games?

I mean, what are your other options?
>. The quality of threads would certainly indicate that.
user, Veeky Forums was never good. It's a different kind of bad now, but it was never, ever good. Don't fool yourself.
cont'd

My very first game was played with some guys I knew from college, ADnD, or maybe it was just DnD. (It's been a while). I didn't know much about the game, but even then, I, and the rest of the group knew about that whole "Wizards start off really weak but become earth-shatteringly powerful as they level up". And so our adventures began, with Bobby playing a useless wizard for a while, and then the rest of us hanging around while Bobby smashed everything with his magic.

And this was cool. Bobby was a good friend, everyone at the table was a good friend, and the notion of intraparty drama along the lines of relative power was just a thought that hadn't occurred to any of us.

Go ahead and look at any random Veeky Forums thread about good GMing practice nowadays, and you'll see lots and lots about how vital it is to include every character at every portion of the adventure, and how it's a shit ref or a shit system that can't facilitate that. And, in an abstract, it almost certainly is a superior way to run things. But it was an issue that had no teeth the way that I at least was playing when I started out, and I think my experience was representative.

Or think about how many threads you get about how players are fundamentally unpredictable, how you should never make any plans beyond maybe the faintest gossamer threadings, and even that should be more geared towards encounter design, because you have no idea what your guys will do at any given moment, and you need to have SOMETHING ready for them to interact with when they go charging off in a direction you never predicted. I've done my share of refereeing. And when I play with my old friends, no, that doesn't happen, I have some very good ideas as to how they think and how they'll react.
1/2

Gaming with strangers is a fundamentally different experience than gaming with friends. And everyone knows this, but it's a mantra, not something viscerally understood. You shouldn't try to design the same kind of game for a group of LGS guys that you would for your old college buddies. But gaming with strangers is the future, for the simple reason that there are a lot more strangers than old friends. And that in turn creates an incentive for more crunchy, casual, and freeflowing gameplay, and less of a focus on narrative structure, long running plots, and thinking in terms of a party as a unit instead of individual characters within it. It's not something you used to have.

Also, and I will freely admit this part might be because I did get into it as a college rat, the pacing's changed too. When I ran my first campaign in my senior year, I had selected my group before time, I prepared most of it over the summer break, and it started with the term as everyone came back to campus; any other course of action was impossible, us living all across the U.S. And with a session or two a week, I wanted to have enough material ready to go so that it would have a highlight around the semester break and climax at the end of the year. Nowadays? That'd never work. You need to have something going on all the time or people will leave your game after a session or two, and that means that you can't easily build the same kind of narrative arc. Shorter, shallower climaxes are the way of the future, unless you can get a long standing group together.

That post is like at least four or five common baits in Veeky Forums or the hobby in general in one, don't fall for it.

cont'd

> Certainly, the quality of the D&D games I see being played at my FLGS indicates the hobby is being overrun by people who see it as a vehicle for cheap, shallow recreation.

Selection bias. You're seeing people who game at FLGS. These days, with the internet and the rise of comfy/yuppie/indoor culture, most games aren't at a FLGS.

Hell, I'd be hard pressed to think of a good reason to run one there, unless it was for charity. It's not my thing. So you're seeing a very narrow slice of the community; the people who Couldn't Make It.
> being overrun by people who see it as a vehicle for cheap, shallow recreation.
Yeah, because back in the Good Old Days, people played VERY SERIOUS GAMES all the time. It was never shallow or fun or just lolrandom.
>and the profit-chasing companies that drive so much of the tone and temperament of the RPG community, begin to pander to them
Counterpoint: enormous amounts of fantastic free shit that gets produced every day for RPGs and distributed via the internet.

Don't like what people sell? Don't buy. It's not like a casualized modern game cancels out an old gritty difficult game. The old stuff still exists. You can run it. You could run it now.
> shitloads of virtue signalling
Virtue signalling is annoying, but it's not just a Veeky Forums or rpg problem.
Friends. I turn normies into die-hard gamers with good GM skills and all that.

I intend to build a retirement home with a LAN network and at least one weekly gaming group. Fuck shuffleboard.

5e is twenty-five percent horse shit mixed with fifty percent bland paste mixed with twenty-five percent good ideas. Proficiency is good insofar as rolling attacks and saves into one number. Skill list is pretty solid. Size-based hit dice is good. Dex to attack with daggers are good. But pretty much everything else is shit. The way ASIs are structured, is shit. The way racial stat mods are all bonuses with no penalties, is shit. The way that half-orcs can survive a fucking nuclear blast, is shit. The advantage / disadvantage mechanic is shit. The daily / encounter powers that fighters get, is shit. The fact that eldritch knight doesn't get a "channel spell through weapon" ability is shit. The way hp and damage are balanced, is shit. Bounded accuracy is a good idea but like every good idea Wizards has (they are few and far between) it is taken way too far.

Savage Worlds is also shit. The chargen is full of trap-option feats (edges), you are punished for not taking a bunch of pre-generated pre-packaged bullshit personality flaws to get more points for your guns skills (a la GURPS), the shotguns are broken, three round burst is broken, the fucking kevlar insert armor is broken, the developers know fuck-all about guns, the exploding dice produce retarded bullshit. Savage Worlds had the potential to be good but with shitty chargen with weird "points" that only work certain ways, mixed with retarded encounter rules, it's not much. It is only good for "swarmfighting" or combats involving huge numbers of creatures. For a fight against a single boss the characters will wipe it out in a round or two at best. Oh, and caster supremacy is still a thing. Not to mention the skill list is retarded, for a generic system. I mean, come on. No crafting skill, but we get a fucking Gambling skill. Okay, sure, whatever you say Savage Worlds.

Also no one gives a shit about your mental problems. Hard lesson, but you should have learned it by now.

>Geek Social Fallacies... normoniggers and roasties... epik nat20 greentext on their Tumblr... Cards Against Humanity... cucks... "badwrongthink"... virtue signalling... SJW

You sound much more like an angry college student PRETENDING to be a grognard by reading some old forum posts, but being unable to contain your angry-20-something-nerd-boy buzzwords.

>Ok, oh mighty gatekeeper.
Nice buzzword. Not an argument. "Gatekeeper" is not an argument. Also given that shit like pic related counts as gate keeping these days, I don't mind being identified as one.
>Honestly, I see the opposite. Players are more discerning these days, and more willing to talk about tone, theme, content, and goals before a game starts.
That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, but okay. Yep, Reddo has popularized Session Zero so that everyone can get their new character a big backstory and links to the other characters because that's the right way to do it and other ways are wrong. But whatever.
>So either don't play in those games or show people the True Way by running good games?
How about, don't waste time and effort teaching those people? But if you blow someone off who tries to learn RPGs and don't put in the effort, Veeky Forums will get mad at you for turning away a budding roleplayer. Especially if it's a woman, cause most of Veeky Forums are thirsty white knight fucks who dream of having a gamer gf. Trust me: make a thread saying you know some girl who wanted to play D&D but you didn't teach her, and the Veeky Forums nu males will come out of the woodwork to vilify you.
>user, Veeky Forums was never good. It's a different kind of bad now, but it was never, ever good
Thanks for letting us know you started browsing in 2013.

I haven't been playing as long as most people here, hell, I was born after some of you started playing, but comparing what it was like when I started in the early 2000s to now, it has definitely improved

I remember learning RPGs in a time when OGL was the end-all be-all of RPGs, the monotony and lack of imagination was painful, nowadays, even if most games are 5e, I can still generally expect people to know about other systems, as opposed to pretty much everyone only knowing how to play OGL

>You're seeing people who game at FLGS.
And others, too, fuckwit. I see people gaming online, I see motherfucking roll20 survey data and artifacts of the changing gaming culture. Don't play stupid. No fucking shit most games aren't at an FLGS. Most games have NEVER been at the FLGS.
>Hell, I'd be hard pressed to think of a good reason to run one there, unless it was for charity.
Good meeting place for some people who don't have play space in their homes / apartments. Or in my case I don't want other people in my place.
>Yeah, because back in the Good Old Days, people played VERY SERIOUS GAMES all the time.
Not all the time, but there were certainly a large proportion of them. Again, I'm sure your experience was different. Probably a serious game was too much for you. That said, keep strawmanning away. It's doing a good job.
>Counterpoint: enormous amounts of fantastic free shit that gets produced every day for RPGs and distributed via the internet.
Name one of those that has influenced gaming culture the way that the newest D&D edition does. Name one of those that has nearly the same influence as the new MTG release or D&D book.
>Don't like what people sell? Don't buy.
Don't like the shit food on the street? Just starve.
>The old stuff still exists. You can run it. You could run it now.
Sure. But I like new content, too. And that's going to go away soon. For the sake of tumblr nat20 stories and critical roll podcasts.
>Virtue signalling is annoying, but it's not just a Veeky Forums or rpg problem.
So because it's not contained to Veeky Forums, it's not a problem? That's like saying if you have cancer, it's not an issue because other people have cancer. Your logic is fucking retarded.

Yawn. Barkin' up the wrong tree, user. I know you saw the spoiler text, and thought you'd have an easy time, but I genuinely don't give a fuck about what you think. You're a nobody. So here's your (You), and I'm sure you'll imagine that you got a rise out of me because I bothered to respond. So be it. You already have a whole narrative about the reality of things built in your head anyway, or you're just a troll, so either way your thoughts on the matter also are pretty meaningless.

>angry-20-something-nerd-boy
Fuck off roastie.

>sperging out because I called him out on his "depression"
Heh.

Maybe you weren't there at the beginning, but when PnP first appeared, it was so different from anything out there. It felt like it had so much promise. Then when 2e came out, they unabashedly bundled house rules into the books- ideas from all over the world! It forced us to think bigger. Looking at it as an aspiring engineer, it seemed like there were so many possibilities, so many avenues of gaming to explore. And it all went nowhere. It feels like there is so much potential that has been going to waste for over twenty five years, and it makes me sad. How can we not innovate now, with the embarrassing array of tools we have?

I have to think it's because there's no money in it. Most of the guys I played with had kids and got mortgages and pretty much dumped the hobby because they didn't have the time and energy for it. I married a gamer and never got around to having kids, and I want to innovate. But I struggle to find jumping-off points- places where I can start from and come up with a new way to play. So I watch the years go by without anything interesting to play with my girl, and it sucks, it just sucks, user.

I had come to terms with having a game but never getting a girl. But who could have expected I'd get a girl and not have a game to play with her?

You were right. I am ashamed.

Well, in for a penny...

>Gatekeeper" is not an argument.
It's not an argument, it's an insult. If I point out someone stinks, it's not an argument for public hygiene or in favour of soap.

You are gatekeeping, or trying to. It's silly.
>How about, don't waste time and effort teaching those people?
So what's the plan then? Whine on Veeky Forums forever? Get madder and madder and change nothing?

>But if you blow someone off who tries to learn RPGs and don't put in the effort, Veeky Forums will get mad at you for turning away a budding roleplayer.
Veeky Forums gets mad at you for everything. The day I decide to do something because the aggregate will of Veeky Forums said so is the day I either learn to suck my own cock or run a loli WWI game.

Neither appeals. Do what thou wilt.
> Or in my case I don't want other people in my place.
Is it the piss bottles?
The body pillows?
The fear of human contact in any way that isn't carefully regulated and controlled, because you didn't learn adaptive social behaviors at a young age and now you fear contact, scrutiny, and discussion?
>. And that's going to go away soon. For the sake of tumblr nat20 stories and critical roll podcasts.
Riiiight.
>So because it's not contained to Veeky Forums, it's not a problem?
It's a problem, user. I was agreeing with you. I was just saying it's like bringing up the decline of real purchasing power of wages as a problem for RPGs. Sure, true... but it's a bigger issue.

Didn't take long for the gatekeeper troll to show up. It's funny watching him get all defensive and try so hard to rile everyone up. The greentext-into-a-single-line-statement is textbook.

It's amazing how Veeky Forums takes everything seriously and cannot into bantz.

I'm a younger dude, started playing in 2004 and I'v never experienced the store-play. I mean I know it does happen but I'v never been in that environment or encountered someone else who players like that regularly.
Just from my experience social-group play is still mostly the norm. My guess would be that since it is more personal way to play most of it's contained remains contained within the group. Troubles are handled in the group, home-brews are made for that group and stories are told only in conversation and the people in the group are nobodies so there is no need to blog about or stream their game.

I don't need the internet to help handle my game so I don't post about my games on the internet. So I don't contribute to the culture as it is seen en-mass thru the internet.
My bud has a fucking Rolemaster game going with some pretty decent people and all the cray up charts and rules included. But it's our thing so what happens at that table will mostly stay at the table.
>like tears in the rain
But I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Get out of here old timers!

WE own the dang hobby now.

>the bantz defense
Phew lad. 'I was just foolin' ya' doesn't work when you've invested so much. Keep fishin' though. You'll catch some more; people are pretty gullible, it seems.

>. And it all went nowhere.
I don't know man.

I've been in GM-less games, games with ridiculous rules, games that were designed to deal with deep emotional commitments and issues, games that are fun as hell, games written by idiots and illustrated by gods, games which changed the way I think about design.

There's some cool stuff out there.
>How can we not innovate now, with the embarrassing array of tools we have?
Want to start? There's never been a better time.

The internet lets you design cool stuff, put it out there, and have everyone get access to it for free or for money. Can you imagine doing that 25 years ago? You had to mail in a letter, get it edited, published, and then wait a month just to find out what people thought.

Now you can write a system, publish a beautiful PDF, and get 10 comments an hour instantly!

>I have to think it's because there's no money in it.
It's not that hard to get rich as an amateur.
>. Most of the guys I played with had kids and got mortgages and pretty much dumped the hobby because they didn't have the time and energy for it.
Different sort of problem, I guess.
>ut I struggle to find jumping-off points- places where I can start from and come up with a new way to play.
First: Read everything. Read Fate and Apocalypse World and Amber Diceless and Gurps and, idk, fucking Robotech or whatever. Read it all and make notes.

Then listen to Veeky Forums.

Veeky Forums is a vast storehouse of people with problems. You want to know what to design? Design stuff that fixes the problems Veeky Forums has. Some of the problems are stupid. Some have been fixed before. But I bet you could put that brain to work and find a dozen others that could use a really brilliant solution.

Plus, you standards are high and tinged by nostalgia. The things you never did and the stuff that never happened always seems so sweet and perfect.

I've noticed a new type of entitlement amongst players since the internet because a ubiquitous thing in the early 00's, and no I'm not talking about wanting more powerful characters or low lethality... players have always wanted that as far back as I can remember, they're players.

Ever since the internet became normal, players seemed to expect games to be RAW, and act like they're being cheated when games aren't RAW. Personally I blame the optimization boards, and being able to download obscure splatbooks. It used to be that, generally speaking, extra books were only had by the DM, and often he was the DM because he had more books than everyone else, and character optimization was a derided character flaw rather than a respected skill. Now, people with hard-drives full of obscure splat-books, and hours of their lives mastering a skill that used to be seen as trait that made you a bad gamer, feel cheated when all that work doesn't see fruit on table by getting to be better than everybody else.

Are you calling me a woman with a big vagina? There has to be some other meaning to that word that actually makes sense in context, but that's all that a google search gave me.

Seriously though kid, this is a thread for actual Grognard. If you want to spout your angry college boy crap, grab your tiki torch and join your brothers or something.

Also, my friends and I got into D&D to recreate our favorite fantasy novels, and now this new crowd acts like that's badwrongfun, and that "the true D&D experience" is this weird self-defining oraborous that all seems to stem from 3rd edition, and that god-awful almost-decade where literally every game on the shelf was [Intellectual Property]D20.

I do see some hope, though. It's never the biggest game, but games that focus on actually having fun, rather than this weird WoTC-deckbuilding-character-construction-experience crap are being produced all over the place, so that's nice.

I'm not even the troll. It's just hilarious how Veeky Forums anons get up in arms so easily and are incapable of just blowing somebody off on a forum about chinese cartoons.

I've read those, of course. They try new mechanics, yes, and they try new settings. But what they don't try is new solutions to problems. Same old hit points, same old "this number is how good you are at x", "this number is what your armor will deflect." There has got to be a better- you know what, I'm not even going to continue the thought, because judging by what you wrote, I bet your eyes are glazing over.

>your standards are high
>2e
a fine jest

and by the way, we had USENET and Pagemaker, so it's not like we were drafting games with fecal matter on the side of an old barn. We just dropped out before we could get anywhere. I did it too.

My biggest complaints all have to do with magic items creation, and lack of allingment restrictions and consquences.
Not a big fan of not having racial limits.

>Same old hit points, same old "this number is how good you are at x", "this number is what your armor will deflect."
Really? We must have been looking at very different games if a D&D HP = a Fate consequence = whatever the fuck Apoc World uses. But anyway, that's just the tip of the iceberg.
>There has got to be a better way
Not saying that's not true, but there are a few options
1. There is a better way, and it's been published, but you haven't found it
2. There is a better way, but it hasn't been written yet.
3. There is no better way.

And by "better", I mean "by your standards."
Option 3 is ridiculous. It's either 1 or 2. If it's 1, research solves it. If it's 2, research helps you do it.

But you need to clearly identify your problem before you move to solve it. Right now, you've just got this vague sense of disappointment and malaise. Once the problem has crystalized for you, it can be attacked and solved.

>we had USENET and Pagemaker
Oh man, Pagemaker. That's a blast from the past.

But anyway, stuff now is so much more convenient and faster and easier. It's ludicrous.

>Then when 2e came out

2ed is best ed...

The main issue is that if you reply, you're automatically 'triggered'. That is probably the biggest issue. I realize if a troll is in it for the (You)s, then you're technically feeding them, but is it really so wrong to tell them to fuck off? I mean you'd do it in real life, why not here? Especially since their responses and goads after the fact really don't hold any weight.

In all of our games, magic was rare. Mages guarded their slim selection of spells and didn't share them.

A +4 flaming sword? Nations would war to possess such an item.

I despise 3-5 for making magic so fucking common and easy.

>I've noticed a new type of entitlement amongst players since the internet because a ubiquitous thing

But "muh snowflake!"!!
When I play WOW, I don't have to roll to spot!!

>I mean you'd do it in real life, why not here? Especially since their responses and goads after the fact really don't hold any weight.

You might think so, but in most actual threads, the best policy is strictly ignoring them. Even a "fuck off" gets a hearty chuckle and encourages them a little bit.

Nothing wounds like silence. Let them starve.

In this thread though... whatever.

>Want to start? There's never been a better time.
>The internet lets you design cool stuff, put it out there, and have everyone get access to it for free or for money. Can you imagine doing that 25 years ago? You had to mail in a letter, get it edited, published, and then wait a month just to find out what people thought.
>Now you can write a system, publish a beautiful PDF, and get 10 comments an hour instantly!

This is a valid point.

Fair I guess. I usually ignore the weak ass bait, but if I think a nugget of gold can be squeezed out of creating discussion, it sometimes seems worth it. I guess whether you verbally castrate them or not really doesn't matter if they just want replies.

Exactly.

Instead of crafting a cunning reply, I try to channel that urge to write into a constructive response instead (again, in other threads, this one's a dumpster fire but it was intended to be one).
>This is a valid point.
No time like the present.

I started playing tabletop RPGs in 1995 and got my start with AD&D 2nd Edition. I'm 33 now. In terms of rules and mechanics, I like modern games way more, even if it feels like some of them lack the satisfying crunch that older games have.

Games are quicker, easier to learn, and when you do learn them, smoother to play and easier to understand. Many of the best roleplayers I've known were terrible at math or had difficulty remembering how the rules worked, but they played excellent characters or told great stories, so it's nice that games are more accommodating in that way. It comes at a cost, like I said before, but I think it's worth it if it brings in people who understand roleplaying but don't have a head for math.

Flavour and setting-wise, I'm a bit on the fence. I feel like the attempts at not hurting anyone's feelings is stifling the creativity of the people who write the settings. I don't give a fuck if the neckbeards screech about women and SJWs and normies invading their games, my problem is that it feels like writers are virtue signalling, doing the whole "Look how progressive we are!" thing when they could just focus on making their setting good instead of worrying about whether or not it's progressive enough.

That's a relatively minor complaint, though. I actually really like the majority of games and have a lot of fun, and I haven't encountered a That Guy of any sort in at least 6-7 years.

It's true, for some people, any attention is enough.

Started playing Magic in 98, P&P RPGs in 99 and wargaming in 2K.
Everything was better before 9/11, and even post 9/11 was better than post iPhone which still was better than post-Tumblr.

But that's not the type of entitlement I'm talking about at all. Please finish reading before commenting. If we're going with "spot" as the example, I'm talking about the types of players who get their panties in a bunch when you handwave a perception test for the sake of ease, time, fun, and plot, because "what's the point in my perception being so much better than everyone else's if you're just going to handwaive it. It's your job to run the game the way the book tells you to."

Before the internet, the DM/GM was seen as a higher authority than the book. After the internet, lots of players (and I'd argue the worst kind of players) want to see the book as a higher authority than the DM/GM, with the DM/GM just serving as an intermediary so their games can be more homogenized with one universal experience for everyone.... like a video game.

I think some of problems with /gdg/ is that at its heart it's amateurs making amateur design mistakes. They're exactly the Average Joe's you're talking about, but you gotta realize ideas alone can't propel a tabletop game. These guys are making the same sorts of mistakes people have been making since the hobby was new because they don't know better, it's just that now instead of that bullshit rotting away in a three ringed binder it's on the internet for you to see.

My dice tower has "I don't care what you read on the internet" burned into it.

>After the internet, lots of players (and I'd argue the worst kind of players) want to see the book as a higher authority than the DM/GM, with the DM/GM just serving as an intermediary so their games can be more homogenized with one universal experience for everyone.... like a video game.
Have you tried talking to your players about this feeling?

I have. First time it came up when we were discussing the rules I was using. Someone pointed out an inconsistency and I told them,

"Part of my job, a major part, is to moderate and manipulate and edit the rules on the fly. The books don't really matter. The dice barely matter, in the end. If you want a competitive hard-edged black-and-white victory and loss game, try a board game. There are plenty of them out there.

But this game is different. My main role is to make sure things happen smoothly, and I can't do that if I have to deal with you guys and the books at the same time. Maybe it's because the books are inconsistent and written by lots of different people in a hurry. Maybe it's because we forget stuff. So I'll use the books... but they aren't the law. You cannot stump me by quoting chapter and verse. This is not unfair. This is not the Oven of Akhnai. As the GM, not only does what I say, go, what I say also /went/. That's my job. If the books say it's one way and I say it's another, then it /is another/. The books are just... vague guidelines."

Seems to work out OK. Most people get it instantly though. And if they don't... well, I suppose I don't run their kind of game, and that's also fine.

I have had to say "I don't give a fuck what Mike Mearls' twitter said. He's not here, and most importantly, he's not the DM."

I regret running 5e. Normally I love DMing/GMing for lots of other games/editions, but... it's just.... idk... not as fun with 5e.

>I regret running 5e. Normally I love DMing/GMing for lots of other games/editions, but... it's just.... idk... not as fun with 5e.
Just talk to your player about this stuff, before the game starts and during game.

They aren't idiots. They can understand this stuff. Give them the tools to understand.

That's because 5e sucks skunk cock.

You're justified in disliking it. It's shit.

>Have you tried talking to your players about this feeling?
>I have. First time it came up when we were discussing the rules I was using. Someone pointed out an inconsistency and I told them,
>"Part of my job, a major part, is to moderate and manipulate and edit the rules on the fly. The books don't really matter. The dice barely matter, in the end. If you want a competitive hard-edged black-and-white victory and loss game, try a board game. There are plenty of them out there.
>But this game is different. My main role is to make sure things happen smoothly, and I can't do that if I have to deal with you guys and the books at the same time. Maybe it's because the books are inconsistent and written by lots of different people in a hurry. Maybe it's because we forget stuff. So I'll use the books... but they aren't the law. You cannot stump me by quoting chapter and verse. This is not unfair. This is not the Oven of Akhnai. As the GM, not only does what I say, go, what I say also /went/. That's my job. If the books say it's one way and I say it's another, then it /is another/. The books are just... vague guidelines."
>Seems to work out OK. Most people get it instantly though. And if they don't... well, I suppose I don't run their kind of game, and that's also fine.
I do BASICALLY the same thing, though it's more of a session-zero primer on my DM style, but preparing people for a game that wasn't exactly RAW and RAIOTOF(rules as interpreted on the optimization forums) isn't something I used to have to do, so it's still frustrating.

For the most part, however, I've found a contingent of players who mesh with and enjoy my DM/GM style. The neo-monty-haul kids from the optimization forums aren't necessarily BAD players I guess, they just don't belong in my game.

>talk to your player
You misspelled " punch your player in the dick if they get salty or stupid".

>For the most part, however, I've found a contingent of players who mesh with and enjoy my DM/GM style. The neo-monty-haul kids from the optimization forums aren't necessarily BAD players I guess, they just don't belong in my game.
That's where I am at.
We're keeping our "core" group together. We're not against a new player...but we seem to be a bit on the quick condemnation side.
"They said (x). They're not going to fit with us"

>preparing people for a game that wasn't exactly RAW and RAIOTOF(rules as interpreted on the optimization forums) isn't something I used to have to do, so it's still frustrating.
Ah, but back in the day, you used to have to prepare them for the idea of RPGs at all. It'll always be something.
> The neo-monty-haul kids from the optimization forums aren't necessarily BAD players I guess, they just don't belong in my game.
It's fun to convert them, but it only works in real life.

But yeah, for the most part, it's friends, a stable group of people, and newly introduced normies.

>If you want a competitive hard-edged black-and-white victory and loss game, try a board game. There are plenty of them out there.

I've DM'ed since the early 80's. And I've tried DM screens off and on, and I've found them to be Game Cancer.

Players need the excitement of their fate hinging on a dice roll to hit or a failed save or that last second critical that saves the day (or seals their fate).

As a DM I roll all of my attacks and damage out in the open. So I guess I am taking umbrage with your "Dice barely matter" statement.

And if you can't deal with a glut of rules then it's a sure sign you're dealing with a Book-of-the-Month system like 3.Splatbook. Those are terrible systems that offer a million unsatisfying options.

I personally think that 5e is the best incarnation of good old Swords and Sorcery D&D since the early days.

>As a DM I roll all of my attacks and damage out in the open. So I guess I am taking umbrage with your "Dice barely matter" statement.

It varies group to group and game to game. But yes, roll in the open, add danger, and don't fudge.

But by god, if Timmy digs out a book that says Bugbears have AC 15 so his attack CLEARLY hit... well, fuck Timmy right in the ear, if you rolled based on AC 16 or whatever.

You are going to make mistakes. You are going to go against the letter of the rules. When that conflict occurs, you can either accept that the books are the final arbiter of this shared truth we call RPGs... or you can say "nah."

I'm a DM who prints out his monster's stats before each session.
My players have no trouble accepting that they might be up against Exceptionally Armored Bugbears, because they know I have their stats right in front of me, and I'm not fudging AC or HP with them.
They know that they can check out my monster sheets after the session, if they so please.

I've had zero issues with someone pulling up a Monster Manual on me.

I've found that older DM's and players either fall into one or the other playstyle category. Either they want to emulate the fantasy novels/movies they grew up on, and are willing to hand-waive the rules into a lose framework to do so, or they want RAW tomb-of-horrors style (though I've never actually met the second type as an old player, so I'm just trusting that people talking on the internet are telling the truth.) Post 3e players want to play RAW AND feel like fantasy superheroes at the same time, which is a much taller order.

They want to feel like they can kick ass, hit with all their attacks, score a critical, and put the Big Bad on their heels with their phenomenal panache.

They don't want to get the feeling that the DM is fudging HP or adding shit last second because they "wanted a really dramatic, long fight".

Not being able to make compelling, multi-layered and challenging encounters is simply a sign of a mediocre GM, it's not the fault of the players and no excuse for robbing them of their agency to compensate.

>Bla bla bla. My monty haul Tomb of Horrors DM style is the only valid one.

Or not

I can't believe that I'm going to respond to this shit post, but I will say this: Players can tell when you are putting your thumb on the scale.

They have a keen sense for when you are prolonging a battle for your personal satisfaction, they are aware when you start throwing a fight because you've done a bad job of establishing the threat level and are going to wipe them.

And it totally ruins The Game for them. At the end of the day, they've come for a game, not be bit actors in your Magical World Storytelling session that you TOTALLY feel could win an Oscar if it were adapted to a screenplay.

Now, I run a story heavy game, and the players are exceedingly attached to their characters and their well developed backstories. But at the end of the day they want to feel that they've really earned victory, that I haven't just granted it to them.

Was with you until
>And it totally ruins The Game for them. At the end of the day, they've come for a game, not be bit actors in your Magical World Storytelling session that you TOTALLY feel could win an Oscar if it were adapted to a screenplay.

In my experience, most first-time players come because they read some fantasy novels, or watched some cheeseball fantasy B+ movie from the 80's, or in the case of yonger players, because they watched something fantasy related on Netflix. They enjoyed that experience, and want to recreate it in a social and interactive way.

It is the echo-chamber of the internet telling them "you're playing wrong" that teaches them to be ashamed of anything that isn't "hardcore" enough, and you need to get to them before that happens, or they're lost to the Monty Haul optimization-forum-culture world forever.

Yes, the players know when you're putting the thumb on the scales (well sometimes) but if you do it right, they won't care, because it was entertaining... you know... fun... the ultimate purpose of a game.

It's one thing to create a random-positive-reinforcement-feedback-loop that feeds players serotonin at statistically predictable intervals like a slot machine, and another to improvise a story that captures the spirit of their saturday-morning-cartoon childhood spent fighting immaginary dragons in the backyard, but do so in such a way that they feel they meaningfully participated.

I'm not saying your DM style is invalid, just that it's not the only one. In fact it used to be in the minority, but has grown VASTLY in popularity since 3e and optimization forums became a thing.

>In my experience, most first-time players come because they read some fantasy novels, or watched some cheeseball fantasy B+ movie from the 80's, or in the case of yonger players, because they watched something fantasy related on Netflix. They enjoyed that experience, and want to recreate it in a social and interactive way.

Oh I absolutely encourage Roleplaying first and foremost. A GM's job is 80% creating an immersive setting, and for players new to the roleplaying aspect, to encourage them to give their characters a voice and personality.

But when the time comes to play out the Action Sequence, your job is to simply set up a challenge, and let the players overcome it with tactics and ingenuity and their amazing powers....or not.

>Yes, the players know when you're putting the thumb on the scales (well sometimes) but if you do it right, they won't care, because it was entertaining... you know... fun... the ultimate purpose of a game.
This sounds great to you as the DM, but in practical application it's just not true. Players don't want a Participation Award for the Lost Mines of Whatever, they want to feel that they've beaten it.

>I'm not saying your DM style is invalid, just that it's not the only one. In fact it used to be in the minority, but has grown VASTLY in popularity since 3e and optimization forums became a thing.
I think you are making a lot of assumptions about my "gaming style" based on personal biases and stereotypes.

Jesus dude. Relax.

>ve DM'ed since the early 80's. And I've tried DM screens off and on, and I've found them to be Game Cancer.
>Players need the excitement of their fate hinging on a dice roll to hit or a failed save or that last second critical that saves the day (or seals their fate).
>Oh I absolutely encourage Roleplaying first and foremost

I'm sorry, but multiple decades of DM+playing experience and almost a decade of just-player experience before that tell me those two statements aren't consistent with each other. A player who knows their character could die because of a single bad die roll is not incentivized to invest much into his character's internal motivations, and instead tends to default to the old monty-haul standard of "raid tombs, ignore story, collect treasure" motivation for all their characters, and play all of their characters interchangeably

>This sounds great to you as the DM, but in practical application it's just not true.
Again, decades of DMing experience tells me otherwise. And before you go blaming a table that is desperate for any DM/GM, that's just not true. By this point in our lives, most of us are experienced enough DM/GM/Storytellers to manage a table, but I'm the one they default to, because I go out of my way to make the game feel like a fantasy novel or a fantasy movie from the 80's.

Am I the guy who runs the one-shot convention games? No. Those are much better off with a "dice fall as they may" "RAW" monty haul type, but when my experienced players want to play a long campaign, or when we get a newbie who "doesn't know much about D&D, but really liked the Dragonlance novels" I'm their go to guy.

It sounds like you'd be much better at the aforementioned convention one-shot type games than I would, and I'm not saying your campaigns are badwrongfun either. However, just because the tool use to keep your players entertained and engaged is "hardcore"-ness, doesn't mean it's the only tool that works.

>And before you go blaming a table that is desperate for any DM/GM, that's just not true.
Defensive much? I haven't made a single presumption about your DMing, actually.

>I'm sorry, but multiple decades of DM+playing experience and almost a decade of just-player experience before that tell me those two statements aren't consistent with each other.
See, you have me stereotyped as a "Killer DM" who remorselessly cuts down players in "Muh Tomb of Horrors", whereas I am actually quite good at setting up varied and interesting encounters that challenge the players.

Admittedly their entire 1st level was a couple of nights of 0-session backstory builders, but while they've had close calls, they've managed to crawl out alive each time (and had to fully retreat more than once). Now that they are nearing 10th level, they really aren't susceptible to "TPK", and are more likely to suffer serious personal setbacks and story-fails rather than get totally annihilated (this is an aspect of 5e).

Again, you are being totally presumptuous about what my DMing style entails, and what my sessions are comprised of.

And for the record, it's nice that you are also a storytelling DM, my current 2 year group had played a lot of beer-and-pretzels style TTRPG before hooking up with me, and have enjoyed the deeper story.

But I stick by my assertion that your "fixing the fights" drains a great deal of the suspense and player agency from the action points of the game.

>I haven't made a single presumption about your DMing, actually.

>they've come for a game, not be bit actors in your Magical World Storytelling session that you TOTALLY feel could win an Oscar if it were adapted to a screenplay.

That wasn't directed at you specifically, but rather a broad statement at DMs in general.

Sorry if it struck a nerve.

Put that against your harping on my presumed running of shallow, killer-DM monty haul tombs.

I started out with 40k & D&D as a wee lad.

I still play 40k & D&D almost exclusively because they're fun.

The only difference I've found is when I tell normies about my hobbies now instead of them alternating between mockery and puking into buckets they go 'oh that's really cool.'

>See, you have me stereotyped as a "Killer DM" who remorselessly cuts down players in "Muh Tomb of Horrors",
Fair enough. I may have made some assumptions based on the first post in which I started interracting with you ( )

I guess what we can take from this is that while many things might be new in the TTRPG world GM-style skubfests and the straw-manning that goes along with them are not.
>And for the record, it's nice that you are also a storytelling DM, my current 2 year group had played a lot of beer-and-pretzels style TTRPG before hooking up with me, and have enjoyed the deeper story.
Agreed
>But I stick by my assertion that your "fixing the fights" drains a great deal of the suspense and player agency from the action points of the game.
In a vacuum yes. Though, usually from session zero, I make it clear that in my settings resurrection is not a thing, and that while 9/10 times the characters' lives are plot-shielded, death is by no means the only consequence for failure and poor decisions. If anything, I often protect the survival of my players' characters so that the various story-driving complications I've put in their lives can continue to be interesting, and possibly have some resolution.

My players would definately describe me as low lethality, but they would NOT describe me as "kiddie gloves." I just prefer consequences that drive the story forward rather than make us go back.... also I generally don't like resurrection, so It's also a compensation for that too.

Finally, this guy is not me, though he may have been reacting to similar cherry-picked tidbits as I.

The mockery was always more about your unfortunate posture and rumpled clothing,
and the puking was the poor hygiene.

There's a difference in Being a low-lethality DM and having the players describe your DMing style as low-lethality.

Personally, I'd never want to be described as the latter, although in practice I don't kill players.

3 sessions ago they badly underestimated the challenge posed by the enemies in the "final chamber" and lazed their way into the fight, and got tore up in the first round.

Them fleeing in a panic, desperately trying to seal a doorway behind them, while they got out to regroup, was fantastic. And when they got back to that chamber, they fought it 200% more intelligently. The thing is, they really thought they were in imminent danger of losing their "favorite characters ever", and it gave them quite a jolt.

You lose that as the Mr Rogers DM, IMO.

Ironically you're probably right, the mockery lessened in conjunction with me sorting my shit out dress and hygiene wise.

>though I've never actually met the second type as an old player
I'll one up you on that and say that I've never met that type. I am in fact almost entirely certain that the only people who purport to be playing RAW are fat autistic neckbeards who lack even the social skills to hang out with the nerds.

Things have improved massively. No doubt about it. The games are better, more mechanically diverse, and much easier to get.

At the same time I think we generally have a poorer class of roleplayer banging around now, the "normie-nerd". They're simple enough to avoid, but Im sure that in the next generation there wont really be any good DMs around. Most people these days are just copying what they see on streams or using premade modules. That hurts DMs and players alike, and stunts their creativity and confidence.

But how do you create or find this mythical 'new idea'?

Maybe I'm on thin ice, but when Gary did the Lord's work and spearheaded the hobby, I don't think he imagined it culminating with someone unironically writing and releasing games about gangrape and licking bodyparts.

Most youngsters can't be bothered with reading a book when they got CoD on the Xbox, the SJW's try to thoughtpolice, the normies are invading, and we got genuine faggots who insist RPGs are art and serious shit.
Still, we're in pretty good shape. The youngsters who can be bothered to read a rulebook are sharp. The SJWs make themselves look more ridiculous every day. The normies keep up recruitment. And we got a billion games to choose from, and the internet to discover them.

It's better in some ways, worse in others.

Better because boardgames have become WAY more mainstream and something grownups can do without people thinking they're weird or childish. That's a big improvement. Also production values have gone up across the whole board.

Worse because people are a lot more thin-skinned and PC in ways that never existed before. A lot of self-censorship going on, both conscious and unconscious, and that lowers the sense of fun and freedom and whimsy that is a huge part of the appeal.

30's here. I started with TSR's Dragon Quest box in the early 90's.

I can agree with those who feel a sense of stagnation. We have so much technology now. We can communicate with people all over the world. Anyone can write up their own game or rules and stick it on the internet for anyone to try. Yet it feels that the medium as a whole hasn't progressed much. Perhaps it doesn't have to.

I do believe GM'ing is an intimate affair. You speak with your players, you understand their motivations and inspire each other to work together to create a night of collaborative fiction. One main pro and con of the entire hobby itself is the time investment.

This leads to why I can understand why non-TTRPG players would rather just turn on a console and start enjoying something right away. Free time is hard to come by, especially when you grow older and your commitments starts to pile up. I see the smaller, throwaway games as a response to this. Sure, they're fun and can be memorable, but won't have any of the pleasing glory of a well told story or the bitter sting of a dropped campaign.

With all that in mind, I do all I can to embrace technology. I run games online for friends both near and far. I happily run games for strangers (After rule zero of course.) I use voice, video, mapping software and more to make the experience more immersive. What is true though is that my old Dragon Quest board remains folded up and dust-covered. I have the impression that playing in person is a dying art. Personal experience here, but it seems that those who can, play online from the comfort of their own home while it's the dregs who linger around the gaming stores because they're confounded in some way (Perhaps they're a terrible person, not literate enough to write in character or not internet-savy)

Either way. I've enjoyed my time playing these games and I hope to make the experience for others enjoyable too. There is a certain timelessness to it all after all.

Also. I really do enjoy the fact that people can create their own content. The giants that were TSR and White Wolf are long dead and rotting. Their products, which I loved back in the day are now mostly supported by little more than inertia. Sure, there's a lot of slop out there and people pandering to certain audiences, but I'm glad that smaller games that are genuine with their passion and brilliance will get the audiences they deserve.

>It's not an argument, it's an insult.
Then don't use it. It makes you look weak.
>You are gatekeeping, or trying to. It's silly.
Yep. And for good reason.
>Veeky Forums gets mad at you for everything.
Not true.
>projecting about why I don't want random strangers in my home
Sorry about your mental illnesses, but no.
>Riiiight.
Whatever you say Chamberlain.
>It's a problem, user. I was agreeing with you.
At least you agree with me on something.

>"what's the point in my perception being so much better than everyone else's if you're just going to handwaive it. It's your job to run the game the way the book tells you to."
That's because of the rules. And yes I have players getting pissy all the time about this sort of thing. They can fuck off.

>If you want to spout your angry college boy crap, grab your tiki torch and join your brothers or something.
Yeah you're definitely a woman. Or a liberal. Basically the same thing in all honesty.

>See, you have me stereotyped as a "Killer DM" who remorselessly cuts down players in "Muh Tomb of Horrors",

I'll take that title.
Our group has well over 80 tpk's.
Decisions and actions have consequences. We wouldn't have it any other way.
>There's a cave. You see large footprints. Possibly ogre.
>They don't have to go in....
>If they do.. they'll likely die. But the freedom to make their own choices is theirs.
Fuck you storytime DM's. I've never met one that isn't a railroading fuck, who gets buttmad and passive/aggressive if the PC's don't follow his map/plan.

We explore. We fight. Sometimes we lose. We accept that if being heroes was easy.. everyone would be one.

>projecting about why I don't want random strangers in my home
>Sorry about your mental illnesses, but no.
Basic thing right there.
Dickheads and freaks aren't allowed in my house.
I can't blame anyone for "reasons" why they don't allow (x) into their home.

>I'm probably going to be in the minority here since nostalgia is a thing, but I like /traditional gaming/ now better than when I started as a teenager.

No, negative people just bitch a lot. Gaming is better now than it used to be. More people playing (which is just a good thing,) more game options, easier to find games, more elegant mechanics in some of the new games.

God, I just scrolled this thread and saw someone complaining about people getting into gaming "for the wrong reasons." These newfags! These normies! Trying something new, just wanting to have FUN! How dare they??????

>old players- Lets make a world/story togeather while I play my 'cool' niche character. This will be fun.

>new players- ENTERTAIN ME PLOT MONKEY! 'while putting in minimal effort'

On one hand I wish when I was a kid there had been as many small companies putting out models I really like. All easily found thanks to the internet.

On the other I still don't think the hobby would have grabbed me as much as a kid if it wasn't for a GW store being basically the only place I had to play, along with the really characterful miniatures that GW had in the 90s (both the older 80s ones from marauder, and the new at the time 90s stuff).

>Our group has well over 80 tpk's.

Dude...

>On one hand I wish when I was a kid there had been as many small companies putting out models I really like. All easily found thanks to the internet.
I share your feels on that.

There was literally only 4 people that played d&d in our area.
4.
Not 5. Not more. Just 4.
Our creativity was limited to our own creativity.
A totally different world than today.

>"I don't give a fuck what Mike Mearls' twitter said. He's not here, and most importantly, he's not the DM."
The fact that you have had to say this is proof of what I was saying above. The game is being irreversibly casualized and dragged into the mainstream. You can say "lol just mad over sekrit club" but the fact is the hobby was BETTER when it was a "sekrit club" and we didn't have to deal with normies and roasties infesting it to quite this degree. There have always been shitty players, but the Skyrim faggots and the fucking 14 year olds whose parents drop them off at the FLGS to troll random games, are the fucking worst. Sure I can hide in my house with my friends and never play with anyone else but the fact is that if something happens to your group, you're going to have to recruit from the outside. I've lost a couple players in the past year because they decided to squirt out a couple little shitstains that they now have to care for. How do I replace them? I find people from the community. And if the community is shit, my new players will be shit.

Mini gaming has died a death for me and feels shallow, bland, disinteresting.

The lore I used to love has become an unwitting mockery of its self.

A setting became a story.

Why do I torture myself.

That's sad to hear. I have seen an aspiring GM fail and go off Rpgs entirely because all his advice came from not his players/friends, but e-celebs. That coupled with his own stubbornness was his undoing.

I'm not afraid of bringing in new people, but I cannot stress the importance of Session Zero. If they seem and act like an element that is going to take away from the group enjoyment rather than add to it, then they don't get in.

Do however, try your best to make shit players, good players. Train them and teach them that it's a group effort, not a race to do high numbers and 'win'.

All true.