Видео

The website is really slick and thematic, I like it! I agree 100% with recording a journaling solo play. I recorded 1 episode of 1000 year old vampire and then I stopped playing because recording time and play time don’t always align. Your thoughts on it feel like the right way to go.

My son received those cards as a Christmas gift this year. They are very nice. The camera doesn't do them justice.

Really, really good insight and exposure. Highlighting the logical fallacy of relativism that is so often peddled to not hurts people's feelings is central to society performing well; same with TTRPGs.

I think anything is valid as long as we recognize that in an RPG, we're doing things that can't be done in one of those quasi-RPG board games or card games. You know the ones where you have a "character" to some extent but it's just a fantasy archetype like "you're the wizard" or you're given or choose the role of a particular detective in a story about several investigators solving a crime. Modern RPGs, usung DnD and similar games as the prototype, do more than this . The characters are unique. They may be like similar characters but are not mere copies. There is also a lot more freedom of action within the rules. It isn't just a chess game where you only control one piece.

As an amateur theatre actor, director and sometimes teacher, I agree that there are skills involved in roleplaying that can be improved. And that better skills often make for a more enjoyable experience (unless you stress yourself out with perfectionism). And that you need constructive feedback to improve those skills. Role-playing of course is only one part of it. You also need to be good at the "game" part (rules and such) to be a well-rounded roleplaying gamer. BTW, I find the whole terminology in English confusing. In German its "Rollenspiel" - and "Spiel" means game as well as play. Which, IMO, actually puts all elements of this art form into one nice package.

Will you do a video about the game part of roleplaying games as well?

Definitely good advice for painting the scene well to stave off needing to answer a lot of basic observation questions. I try to focus on those things that are directly and immediately sensible on first observation. Taste can come into it, too; sometimes they'll encounter something that leaves an acrid, or metallic taste in the mouth. Cheers!

That's some great advice. Thanks for sharing, mate.

Creating a Spread or a Single page version of a PDF is just an extra click when exporting, so its not any extra work for the creator really. The thing you show in this PDF is a quirk in digital layouts. The reason for it is that he started counting page numbers including the cover as page 1. In normal printing you would not count the cover as page 1. This however can lead to the issue where you try to go to page 70 and end up at page 69, or worse even earlier. Depending on how many "lead" pages the PDF uses, the more these numbers shift as the "go to" numbers refer to the "real" page 70 and not the page numbered 70. There is no easy fix for this in many layout programs, including the popular Affinity, right now. So you have to decide to either start numbering including the cover so the go to works or you start counting at the content page 1 so it works better for the printed book as expected but then the go to doesn't work. That is also a reason that some PDF do no include a cover for example. The readers are sadly not reliably able to read the page numbers on a page. Readers are just not made with real books in mind, its just slowly changing.

quite frankly, i think the rise in popularity thanks to Stranger Things and a certain youtube show has been a massive negative for the TTRPG community. the popularity has lead to people who don't actually care about TTRPGs to get deeply involved because its popular and they are worse than the grognards of old (and i say that as someone who prefers roleplaying every single time).

Sorry I got to the party late; it's been a busy past few weeks for me. I suppose I have been pretty vocal about there being no "true way" to enjoy role-playing games. I don't really have much interest in convincing the die-hards that their way is just the way that is right for them. If strict character performance in real time is what's working for you, then great for you. However, to paraphrase Clifford Geertz, just because that approach is so enjoyable and rewarding to you that you have "clothed it in such an aura of factuality that it has come to seem uniquely realistic." Personally, I am also in favor of playing from the perspective of a character that is autochthonous to the shared imagined setting, rather than a hodge-podge of fantasy tropes, and ones own worldview/mindset. I, too, prefer players to just run their characters without constant asides, although "real time" is certainly not the only time played out in RPGs. The use of "constant questions" has tended to be a sticking point between me and the 4D'ers. From my perspective, that last part seems to stem from the 4D players not caring about the depth of the shared imagined space within which play will occur. As near as I can tell, whatever whim they have for their character can be played out as it arises; and, as long as it doesn't contradict the basic thematic framework, or any previously established details, then they just go with it and let the collaborative narrative work everything out in the end. For character performers, that's fine; it doesn't work for me as a motivation to play these games. I need a world with established coherence, consistency, and continuity within which to enact these character decisions. I need a world that provides definite obstacles, and constraints upon character choice; moreover, I need those obstacles and constraints to have ontological priority, not just details made up in the moment, willy-nilly, because they happened to serve what a player wanted to have their character say or do. I do understand that all of us are using our experiences as inspiration to create these worlds; however, I cannot abide playing in a world that is cobbled together into an amalgamation of whatever fantasy tropes have been absorbed by the collaborating players. In the grand scheme of playing RPGs, I do not care how immersed the other players are in their characters; as long as they're paying attention to the cues of the shared imagined space, and the other players, then they can be immersed or not to suit their own needs. I’m a social scientist, not an artist; I don’t need a lot kibbitzing or internal anguish to posit an individual comprised of acculturation, enculturation, and personality/temperament that is rooted in a fictional, but well-reasoned, shared imagined setting. At worst, I’m reductively applying an array of Durkheimian social facts as a proxy for an individuated being; but, I definitely do not need a sense of internal drama to make that being’s decisions comport with that postulated array of social facts. I don't encourage people to ask a lot of "am I allowed to" questions; but, to the extent that it nearly impossible to share every sensible detail I, as the GM, know about a location, I do expect players to ask clarifying questions about that environment. I'm not opposed to players adding materials and/or concepts to the world; but, with the exception of fairly mundane, situation-appropriate items that have little potential to affect play, those things need to be decided between sessions, not during them. I'll add my own analogy here. One of my other hobbies is mountain biking; I often ride in fairly to extremely difficult terrain. I have a friend who likes to ride; but, he only rides on the fairly maintained gravel trails of the larger local and state parks. They have lots of elevation changes, and are off-road in the sense that they’re not overly manicured, and aredefinitely not paved bike paths; but, they do not provide much in the way of technical challenges. Is my friend not a “real” mountain biker? Instead of enjoying the occasional leisurely ride in the company of a friend, should I take his bike from him, and tell them unless he’s willing to ride the more challenging courses, then he shouldn’t be allowed to have a mountain bike? I ride difficult mountain trails, where the only maintenance is provided by other hobbyists; but, I don’t participate in “trials” competitions, which all about difficult technical challenges. Should a competitive trials rider take my bike from me? To quote Gary Gygax, from his 1989 book _Master of the Game: Principles and Techniques for Becoming and Expert Role-Playing Game Master,_ in a chapter entitled “The Philosophy of the Grand Master”: _It is absolutely necessary to understand the only valid purpose for role-playing games. The games exist to provide entertainment. Entertainment is basically fun._ If two people want to play a Civil War game, by taking on the roles of Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, based on nothing more than some Hollywood entertainment they’ve consumed, and they have fun doing it, then who are we to diminish or dismiss the qualitative reward that play had to those two players. Just because there’s no wrong way to enjoy playing tabletop RPGs, as long as you’re enjoying the experience, it does not mean that every style of play is right for you, or should be the way you play at your table. Anyway, the bottom line is at the cash register. Regardless of how we feel about the ways other people are playing these games, or even promoting particular ways of playing these games, as long as they keep funding the TTRPG industry, there will still be new games, and new players of those games, coming into the hobby. If people want to spend their free time trying to “gatekeep” how the hobby is practiced, then bless their hearts; I just see it as another form of role-playing game. In the end, those new players are just going to gravitate toward the ways of playing that appeal most to them; and, those players already using those approaches, will be there to provide them with tips and tricks they have developed over the years. Regards!

PRESENTATION: I have encountered this argument before, and I partially agree. There are ways of gaming as a player that lead to a more immersive, fulfilling role play experience (for me and possibly others). To insist that if people do not play that way is inferior form of gaming, is goading emotion. Emotional people are too busy emoting to listen. Intentionally upsetting the audience you are trying to reach is counter productive to your message. All of these judgements are made by setting yourself up as 'the authority'. This presents you as having the definitive guide on superior role playing. There is no room in this message for you to learn and grow or to accept that you could be wrong. This comes off like you have reached the pinnacle of the hobby and you are dictating to those beneath you. It looks very arrogant. So if people are angry, it might not be what you said, but how you said. STYLE: I like the martial arts analogy, but I feel it has been presented with very little scope. If one take a Karate class, your analogy fits. However there are many different styles of martial arts, and different techniques with in those styles. You may not like them, you may devalue them, but they exist, and ignoring them does not strengthen your premise. Your premise assumes there is only one style of RP you can be a master in. Just like fighting styles, there are numerous RP styles and people can gain a measure of mastery in that. A master of Karate, or Boxing, or HEMA, will stomp your ass just as flat. A player who plays their style well is a superior role player. Most, if they play a lot of games, put a lot of time into the hobby, most players will end in a similar place that you describe. Just like there are only so many ways the human body can move, in Martial Arts, there are ways to be more effective and efficient in your RP. As you gain experience in either you strip things that are style from things that are fundamentals. PLAY: This feels like an audition for people who want to play at your table. Which is fine, finding a group that fist the style you most want to play is great. Most of us play for fun, with our friends, and very very few put the time in to gain the mastery you are talking about. We are full grown adults with busy lives playing 'make believe' with dice, and laughing with people we get to see rarely. To insist that this is the best way for people to play with their imagination, the best way to direct their thoughts, is impertinent to the player.

I always thought, that 'play however you want' or 'there is no better or worse way of playing' is not a 'rule', but just a statement, that gets rid of people saying I should be doing it their way, cause their way of playing RPG is "the correct one". I don't think there is "a correct one", because not everyone is able to play on the same level of commitment(?). Also - the 'no rules' approach is ok in some cases. For example as a short experiment, to check what will happen, what will change and what will be discovered, that otherwise would stay hidden. As for the 'play for fun' approach - I think that in free time everyone should do whatever they want. There is no need to constantly improve yourself (said that - I love improving myself constantly in my free time, but I don't think this is for everybody). The 'do whatever you want' however, ruins the experience. If you play with specific character, you should feel it and try to act like one. If you want 'play however you want' with it, just make the character you want to play, and act accordingly! And when you want to change the way you behave, talk to your GM and ask for character change! Otherwise it is just stupid and insulting to the GM and to the rest of the group. A ruleset, a discipline - that are 'fun makers'. RPG is fun when it's challenging. It is fun because of the rules you should obey. It is fun, because you can evolve and master the craft, and every time you do it, you reach the next level of fun. So - play as you like, but I will play my way. The way I consider the correct way (and I think writing that I agree with what you say). The 'every way is good' is a very good statement, because some people that don't want to share deeper experience and don't want to make effort will leave you alone and won't argue anymore ;)

What a bunch of nonsense, the rejection of a realism stance does not automatically lead to the proclamation of a relativism stance. If you want to get philosophical, then better do next time proper homework and account for a moral anti-realism stance too. The second point is a strawman, since nobody says just because there multiple ways to have fun that all ways are equally good for everybody. You even bring the example of an art exhibit, and were also nobody hangs a childs work next to a classical master of the arts, but you know very well that there are many different styles that all can be art and not just one. Point #3 is really funny, since you fail to understand the perspective of people you are arguing against, which is why you rely on fallacies, like the false dichotomy on the first point ad the strawman on the second. I don't understand your fourth point. Is that an attempt to look smart? If so, then you have already proven with first three points that this is not the case since you fail your own standard with regarding the third point. Regarding your fifth point, well, that is just, like, your opinion, man. Just like the martial arts you mention, there are more than one style and so no single true way to do martial arts. And no, I am not angry, I have seen this arrogant nonsense so often that it only saddens me. I mean sure, if you want a highly tactical game to feel smart, then sure there is a best way to achieve that, or if you want in character immersion then there are techniques that make that easier to achieve, but some people want a narrative experience and not a tactical, and others want to get immersed in the narrative as a whole and not just in their character, and those are not lesser forms of roleplay or even not true roleplay. So, get down from your high horse, and maybe learn about other styles, so that you can actually define your own personal style and understand that it is just a preference you hold and not some cosmic truth how to engage with the hobby.

Remember- your version of fun may vary.

As an art form? You may take it too seriously. Method actors in dnd tend to be a problem. It's a game. try your best. try to get better, sure. If you are not having fun. dont play.

"No wrong way to play" is the gaming equivalent of "do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".

Confused or frustrated by this video? Go download this free PDF, give it a read, and then come back. www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/411975/how-to-roleplay-the-hard-way?affiliate_id=279721?affiliate_id=4316964

Hey, I have come to politely disagree. I fully agree that the sentence: “there are no right way to play TTRPGs” may insinuate that there is neither a wrong way to play TTRPGs. So let me rephrase the sentence. “There is no one right way to play TTRPGs.” There fixed it. I agree that your idea of TTRPGs is fun, I love role playing, but I also know it isn’t for everyone. Not because they cannot comprehend the idea, but if they are not comfortable with it or other any reason. My favourite type of game is the one where you roleplay, and then, by accident break character, notice that it’s a human being in-front of you, and then roleplay again. Like Adventures of Azarim or Tales of The Misfits, by Viva La Dirt League. But in the end, I will also leave my own opinion on the best way to play. With a carefully crafted story, unique homebrewed creatures and the one rule that vetoes any other: if even one player finds a subject uncomfortable, that subject shall not come up. I understand that life isn’t always easy, and some days you want to play as the character, imagining this grand world that you escape into. And other days you just want to meta game a tiny bit to feel badass and in control of something in your existence. One isn’t less right because of the title of the game, one doesn’t give its players a worse experience. I tell you, the GM is the one that makes a good or a bad experience. The GM and then the players, and who knows, maybe we will roleplay. Thanks for reading. Best regards- Benjamin

You can only get so broad in your philosophical pondering before they lose all meaning. What do you mean to say is the correct way to play ttrpgs? Most of the “no wrong way,” idea comes from the fact that the most prolific rpg (Dungeons and Dragons) has like 900 pages of “core” rulebooks. Most of the debates about “how to play,” center around rules minutiae, the use of paraphernalia like miniatures or VTTs, or the endless “railroading v sandbox,” debate. So, what are you advocating for?

I feel that many of the points in this video assume an inherit absolutism in the topics that it refutes. I do not think those points are commonly assumed to be contextualess holy mandate. In fact, I think most reasonable people understand that collaborative social activities are not meant to be so freeform that any expression whatsoever is equally valid. I have never seen anyone suggest that. Perhaps with the exception of children. I know that may sound like an insult, but genuinely that is the one example I can think of where this would be applicable. Have I misunderstood the target audience for this video? If so, I apologize.

Awesome analysis. You validated feelings I've had but been unable to articulate. I would love to see an expansion of point 5 and your thoughts on how that works. Being the character while having no real sensory input would really difficult if you couldn't ask the GM questions.

The premise you start off with is false. Saying "There is no wrong way to play" isn't a literal statement. What they are really saying is that "there isn't just one right way to play." Not having rules is the literally the opposite of imposing rules, saying they are the same would be nonsensical. The absence of something can not be the same as the presence of that thing. Saying that "morals are subjective" is an example of "self-defeating logic" is incorrect as it is one of the only two logical conclusions a person can reach in regards to morality. The source of morality is either subjective or it is objective, it can not be both. Either position is an absolute because of the fact that it must be one or the other, there is no other option.

While you presented some good points, when you say there's an objectively best way, or optimal way to play, you're also making a quite bold statement, and I say I agree that that's a pretty good way to play, I also recon that it may not be for everyone. Some people may be deeply interested in the character building and optimization, tactical combat and so on. Other people may be interested in power and prestige in the game world, or riches, or anything else. While we may say there's an higher tier of play, the one of immersion, living in the fictional world by means of your character, for some people that could be a lesser goal, or even not fun at all, for some reason or another, and I find it difficult to argue against this. For comparison, let's say someone likes walking, but then someone says martial arts are best, because you not only get better physically, but you also become more agile, flexible, and able to defend and attack yourself, but then the first person just want to walk, or ride a bike, or even play golf or some other not so complete exercise. Who are we to judge? How can we objectively tell the " right way" to play? We can only rank the ways to play if we first established a criteria, but then, each person could have it's own criteria to judge how games should be played, in order to have access to some kind of experience. I had a relative that loved to play a card game that was, to me, so boring and endless, and too much reliant on luck, other people love play bingo, and that to me is just a 100% luck thing with extra steps, but make people think this is a great way to spend an evening. So, I'd say there's no wrong way to play, but there's definitely best ways to play according to what you want from a game.

Saying there is no wrong way to play is semantically identical to saying there is no way to play. If a game is anything at all, then a game is nothing but the sum of its rules.

So i 100% disagree with this but i think its because you are thinking of a specific person/people/situation that i dont know about. Currently, it kinda sounds like your saying a lot of things that are true to "prove" what your trying to say but without proper context it just sounds like "The way i play is the correct way and you are wrong for doing anything different".... In a creative space...

Some people just want to have a silly goose time and that's also okay. Find the group that likes what you like if you are really seeking this kind of deep role-play immersion. That's not always practical for some people. If your group is chill you should always be able to say "I want to run a game that goes really hard on role-play and interesting stories and sets a certain tone do you want to play that kind of game? TTRPGs inherently have an extremely high bar to becoming something that could be considered art. For one thing it borrows so much from various fantasy worlds and existing fiction in order for session preparation to be manageable for the DM. And I think secondly it does not generate income - and therefore the time available to invest will always be limited and the priority secondary to other things. I like that the game doesn't feel elitest, but it's also clear that having certain talents (improv etc.) massively improves your ability to play some facets of RP. I guess I feel you are both right and wrong at the same time it really depends on your goals when playing the game. I don't think a lot of people are trying to quantify the quality of their performance when they play. They are just trying to have fun.

Ignore this man.

While I broadly agree with the points being made here, I think it's worth remembering that the 'there's no wrong way to play' attitude came into being as a reaction to the extreme opposite. We had, arguably, a couple of generations of highly pretenscious gate keepers who not only imposed a lot of attitudes, but did so with out any particular insight, imposing them largely as a matter of convention and common preferences. We should definately nurture and respect the drive to generate art, but at the same time we need to make sure we don't recreate a distain for finger painting.

Might as well as be quoting Rush with their line "If you chose not to decide you still have made a choice". And which I say "DUH!" Everyone knows that. You aren't giving new insight into the world. No one is sitting there like "OMG You can't call the rule that you can play the way you want a rule, how dare you!"

The first half of the video I can agree with, but for me to follow you further I would need a more clear definition of what “roleplay” is from your perspective. Also, critically evaluating if something is good or bad / better or worse requires knowing what the goal of the thing is. My goal when playing TTRPG’s is not deep character immersion. If that excludes me from what you view as a TTRPG, then I’m okay if we are separated. In the same way I have no interested in learning the flute (despite it probably being very rewarding to those who learn it), I am quite content knowing how to play guitar and piano.

It’s a game - just a game. Games have rules and structure. but there is nothing at stake at your game except the enjoyment of the players. We DM must find that sweet spot between guardrails, rules, structure and sanboxing.

I would love to play fully immersed in roleplay someday, but the level of skill and the relaxed nature friends play like means they do very simple face-value roleplaying, and combat akin to a videogame, looking at what the sheet says they can do, and doing strictly that.

You are living breathing embodiment of Dunning Kruger effect ;)

I don't defend "play as you want", but you make a flawed assumption that TTRPGs should be about "real role playing" The term "role playing game" was controversial when it first became popular. D&D and other games didn't originally use that term, and when it became popular, many complained that "I'm not 'role playing' when I do this. I'm playing a strategy game, I'm playing an open ended adventure game, but I'm not 'role playing" my character beyond deciding their actions"

I appreciate the balls this took to make this video. TTRPGs have gotten to a level of toxic positivity that I hardly interact with anyone outside of my circle because I tend to have pretty similar view points as your video and I just do not wanna have that argument with other at my favorite LGS much less in the comments section of the internet. Genuinely great job on the video!

Perma-DM here (have been DMing for the past 6-ish years by this point, across 3 campaigns) (I am specifically going to be referring to D&D 5e here, and I am not too well versed in other systems, and lack the ethos) Kind of an L take here in this video. I'll address your points one by one Self Defeating Logic: This argument tends to be pedantic, it is like the paradox of tolerance where "a truly tolerant society cannot, itself, tolerate intolerance". Such linguistic paradoxes don't exactly have any substance behind them. The False Promise: Roleplaying, like other forms of art, have value that is always relative to the artist, and to the observer. Much like how a 6 year old's hand-turkey might be seen as more valuable by that kid's mother than a painting by a 3rd year art student, even if the average observer might have a different evaluation, and may critically analyze the latter as "better". But in D&D, the observers of the roleplaying are the DM and the other players, not a wider audience (unless it is something like a Critical Role situation). This begs the question. Even if the roleplaying is subpar (based on either arbitrary or relative standards), why should the player *need* to improve? While I do think that the game is generally more fun when the roleplaying is good, it entirely depends on the play group. Some players don't want to put in the work to improve, and that is okay so long as they aren't trying to join some game with an emphasis on immersive roleplaying. Some players just want to show up on a Saturday afternoon and play some D&D and hang out with friends for a few hours while cracking jokes and talking about their week. This is fine. It doesn't make the D&D any less "valid". Perspective Taking: Method actors are PAID to do act. D&D players aren't PAID to play (again, not really counting Critical Role). Actors have a market pressure to improve their craft. I am experienced in this style of roleplaying (to the point where I once was able to have a heated debate in-character, defending an idea with cohesive arguments that I myself disagreed with irl). But while every DM has the right to choose who sits at their table, but I wouldn't want to ever put that kind of pressure on one of my players (for a similar result to the analogy, you would need to have a player's spot at the table be contingent on their skill in immersive roleplaying). I kick players only rarely, and only for real problems, not because they aren't as engaged as some of the other players or myself. The Intelligence Gate: I don't see your point. Sure, not everyone can be an amazing roleplayer, and as you said, that is fine. But how does that prevent people from improving if they want to?? I actually find that the opposite effect happens. The Mercer Effect (Last time bringing up Critical Role, I promise). So many new D&D players that saw Mercer DMing during the pandemic, expect most D&D games to be like that, not realizing that they have professional writers, and voice actors there that are PAID to act. The Way Forward: I don't see the issue with the players staying at that kid level. Like you said, they are running around "having fun" (which is the primary goal for D&D. If the game is not fun, it fails to be a game). I do acknowledge that some approaches are better than others, but there is not a one-size fits all. Every game should be tailored to its players, to maximize the fun for them. For example, one could have a D&D game that is all about combat, with basically no roleplaying with progressively harder and harder bosses that take high level strategy and coordination to defeat, while another campaign might have very little combat, focusing more on roleplaying and character-driven narratives. Some will have a focus on exploration of a world, some will have a combination of the 3. Notably, not every player should be at every table. But there should be a table for every player (so long as someone is willing to run that table) In conclusion, I defend "Play how you want" because it IS true (so long as everyone is having fun at a table appropriate for the game they want to play). The opposite of fun is boredom. Boredom arises when the game becomes a chore. If a player wants to improve their roleplaying, it should be a pursuit they take on their own volition, not because of a social pressure, as that can make it a chore. If you say that better roleplaying makes the game "better", I will ask you: "Better for whom, specifically? The player that improved? Perhaps, if they were capable of such levels of roleplaying and are able to do so without it becoming a chore. Better for the DM? Maybe, but the DM's fun ALWAYS comes secondary to the players' fun. Feel free to reply. I am definitely willing to have a civil discussion.

A LOT of grain of salts need to be taken with this one. You can already see elitists bloating their ego as we speak. When people say there are no "right" way to play it does not mean there are no "wrong" harmful way to play. It just means there are no "one size fit all". Because not everyone play for same goal or has same expectation toward gaming. Just like your martial arts analogy, it actually perfect. Some just train for fun, some to excercise, some to develop character and disciplibe, some to defense themselves and some to compete in sport. They are all valid, but none are sole correct choice. Yet some train to be better at harming others, to violate others, to find excuse to fight, to con people, to brag they did, to valid their flawed philosophy. These are harmful goal and motive that are "wrong" to pursuit. No one single right way does not mean no wrong way. But also does not means everyone should aim to be champion or listed weapon. It means you should find, or made, a group that match your level. If you feel too small for a pond you should seek bigger pond or dig one yourself, not complaining how other fishes are too weak or the pond is too small. You could, and should, encourage them to try and grow bigger, stronger. But you have no ethic right or moral high ground to pressure them or guilt tripping them into doing so. Least by internet validation.

Some people want to dance. I want to Tango. But we can all participate in dancing as a social activity and moving our bodies to the music. But not everybody can Tango. At least in Roleplaying. I'm a horrible dancer. But I created this analogy to show the distinction in skill when it comes to roleplaying, and what I'm aiming for when I want to join a Roleplay session. This way, I can proverbially "sign up" to the "right" dancing class.

Great video!

Wait...So you mean we shouldn't waste everyone's' time by goofing off for 3/4s of the session. Or. adding inclusive everything isn't just another waste of my life...? -N.I.P. (Non Interested Player) "What would my character do right now?" "What is my character even doing here?" -G.N. (Game Novelist)... "You smell frustration and hear metal grinding on your agency as you turn around you see the train as it slams into you and carries you off to the next encounter. What do you want to do? Go ahead and roll a d20 and tell me what you get." -Good Times. Same time next week? ... A goal of anyone's session should be the attempt to stay in harmony with the table, tone, and setting. Results should be memorable.