This is when you have to switch hats and become a referee over just a "yes, and" storyteller. Players are free to have their characters do what they will in THE world, but that does not mean that agency is free of consequences. Subconsciously, this may be what your players are looking for. The players may be testing the envelope to see where the real stakes and consequences begin for their characters. Your players may have become disengaged because there is no edge to that envelope. You may find that the players reengage once you introduce consequences to some of the more outrageous actions the characters are taking.
Absolutely. If you think about it, a game where you compromise and let the players win all the time isn't even a game. A game has winning and losing conditions.
There is a HUGE difference between 1. Punishing your players. 2. Providing consequences for PCs. One is personal, and aims to "punish". Consequences do not involve punishment, just consequences - things that would naturally happen. You try to seduce a Dragon. A Nat 20 will have the Dragon laughing hysterically. If they don't take that as a queue to run, they get eaten the next turn. ZERO punishment there, just consequence. The language matters in terms of how we as GMs (or players) see the table.
solo play is good for coming up with possible dialog, adding in henchmen and minions, creating side quests. like anything, even GMs need to 'practice'. as others had stated, it gives GMs the ability to playtest. this also provides the GM the opportunity to adjust the story to better fit the players/characters.
@FamilyTableTop yes, it let's me see various scenes in advance. from this, I can add or remove elements that can be problematic. this also gives me the ability to present henchmen/minions instead of the actual villain. by doing this, I can make the primary villain seem much more villainous. I can also prep a variety of clues for future problems as well as 'red herrings'. this keeps players guessing at the different information provided, to which is relevant and which is not. my campaign is a true open sandbox, with events unfolding around the characters. some things they directly influence, some events they have nothing to do with, but the fact that they occur, could be important later on. solo play - play testing, helps me decide which events I want to include and when.
Tone is set by the GM. If the players don't match that tone, it's probably time to find new players. I know that's not always the easiest thing to accomplish, but there's really no running away from that. First thing you can try is to communicate honestly to the players, and let them know what sort of game you want to run, and ask them if they buy in to that. If not, you have your answer. If so, hold them to it. When they do or say things that seem contrary to the type of game you are trying to run, remind them of that. If they persist, they are telling you without saying so directly that they don't want to play the game you want to run anymore.
The number one reason for running solo games for me, is to learn the rules or to test a scenario or encounter.. And when you play rpgs with a group it's a learning experience, for both sides..
Playing solo can give you great insights into how to play a sandbox style rpg, how to throw out unconnected items, events, NPCs, monsters etc. then use your imagination to pull them together so they all make sense. It also teaches how to improvise, use random tables etc. etc. And it's a way to get familiar with the rules of a new rpg. On the topic of dumb actions from players or any actions from players, it's great fun to make sure there are consequences for what they do. Even getting treasure and taking it back to a town might go badly if the treasure belonged to someone who is now dead. Consequences and stakes are cool. This adds tension and can make things much more exciting because that next dice roll or action could result in your character's death. As an aside I thought you could always marry a dragon. You don't allow that in your world? Wierd!!
If your players had the same passion for the game you have, they'd be GMs like you are. I spoke about frustrations like this in our 2nd or 3rd solo campaign vid. I hope it works out for you.
Young players just like to heckle and make light of the game world... 🤷♀️ They are not used to fictional content with high stakes and serious tones and do not know how to properly deal with it... Take a look at the kind of content they usually watch on TV and YT...
This mindset is also prevalent in people that play single player video game RPGs. They will just do whatever they feel like because it's "just a game". Attack friendly NPCs, use cheesy tactics that would make people groan, abuse bugs, etc. Because they are treating it as a simple game where they just want to win as opposed to a hobby that involves people collaborating in order to experience a shared story.
As for Solo RPGs, Halo was always best played as a LAN party (like a TTRPG group), Without that, playing the campaign solo is still pretty fun. I don't see solo RPGs as very different from that. Like you said, you control your level of buy-in. Be that blowing off steam after work or white-knuckling a boss fight. Online RPGs were, for a long while, exclusively solo adventures.
I interpret the question as How can I endure my own company long enough to enjoy a solo game? It's a challenge sometimes. But it's rewarding to forge that relationship with yourself.
I have the opposite with my Wildsea players, there are times where they just take things too seriously and are straight-up paranoid. They were camping overnight in the woods, and I had a tonne of fun (unintentionally... and then intentionally) freaking them out thinking they were being stalked by some kind of eldritch terror in the dark, when it was actually just a fairly typical red squirrel of above average intelligence, looking for a stash of insects it had hidden away in a tree. Meanwhile, I just introduced time travel into my Wildsea campaign (the expansion practically dares you to do it, while explaining that you almost absolutely shouldn't do it), and after being very nervous about it, it went over unbelievably well. My players are usually pretty reserved with their comments, but couldn't contain their excitement (even straight-up giddiness) after we finished that session!
Hey FTT, wanted to reverse roles and ask a question here. Had to think about how to phrase this because I'm really trying to get at are the questions: == "What in your players lives are they using as a reference to solving the problems of your world? == What references have you in common with them? And, Do you mention out of game sources of inspiration to your players and let them know that if they use that reference they will understand the tone and approaches that work harmoniously within your setting?" I didn't want to ask those in RUclips comments though. Seemed like the wrong place and time. If thinking about those helps frame what I mean while you read on by my question, or gives you better guidance about what I'm getting at, well, then cool. :D I settled on the following to ask. I wanted to ask about touchstones in your game. Touchstones in the case referring to common media for your game that everyone uses to draw upon to reference tone and themes, actions and... well just the base logic of the storytelling really. Are your touchstone helping your group stay on the same page or do you need to re-approach those with your group so that you and your players better know what kind of game you are playing? To explain, (TLDR) I ask because your recent stream with Mr. Dunder_Moose got the conversation going about fudging in the Dungeon's Dissent Discord, but got me thinking about Appendix N. Which is important to the BrOSR folks when they run AD&D. Simply put, there is logic to be found in having that common ground about Inspirational Reading, Music, and Other Stuff for the game. Having those touchstones avoids exactly what you're talking about when it comes to this disconnect. It's the difference between showing up expecting to play Star Wars (Episodes 4-6) and instead playing out Spaceballs. Tones all different, need to turn everything off and turn it back on again. Adjust the video settings to make the joke. (The longer read when you have time.) == Furthermore, in some of the examples you used for this video, you remind me of that same core logic found in games to help guide decision making. Whether it's the Legend of Zelda, Pokemon, a Persona game, any edition of D&D, Clue, Monopoly, the Talisman board game, or some other board game or video game.... base line, they teach the player through gameplay how to play the game. We do the same thing with a primer and setting tone early as GM's about the game. And sometimes we have to re-up that and demonstrate it again and again. == In the video, for example, you're talking about dropping off a cliff to see if their is a hidden ledge, that's a Dark Souls gameplay challenge 101. Important for discovering hidden items, just like how Link would place a bomb in old Zelda games next to a crumbling wall to discover hidden passages. Speaking of which, didn't your son start playing Dark Souls and Elden Ring recently? Cool, he may have learned that strategy for those games. Now he needs to learn what strategies apply to your Dragonbane setting. And the challenges therein. Either through that same trial and error, organically learning, or by some other method. Same goes for all your other players. == Allow me to expand that a bit, I'll take a page out of the TTRPG Dungeon World to help. You have a whole group of different people. Your son, your wife, your ex wife, and so on. Each person at the table have lives which present their own unique, or at least distinct, challenges and problems. To face these, they have to have "playbooks", just like in Dungeon World different classes do. Keep in mind, I'm not being one hundred percent literal. Playbooks in this case simply refers to the "moves"(as in strategies) that people use to approach and solve problems in their daily lives. Lots of people can cook as a move, but a Chef will Cook, with a capital "C" because they need that to be one of their core moves in their lives. And they will cook to solve other problems in their lives too. == Where I'm headed is, if your setting doesn't come with any sort of inorganic method to get a feel for it such as a playbook, or a least a forewarning like "Yo, you will get the most out of this setting if you think about (relevant stories) or thinking about this tone", or even like a Primer or anything similar. Then the learning curve is based one what is happening at the table organically. Plus whatever strategies seem relevant from the rest of a given player's life and the character they are playing. == Which leads me to say, for your deliberation, that if your players don't have any sort of common touchstones which make the experience "distinct" from the rest of their lives and give them reason to approach the experience differently (to use different moves) it makes perfect sense that your players are being creative and to some extent zanniness. That's the organically forming tone of your game night. At least as we have seen it as the youtube and discord audience. Whether you have been playing Dragonbane or Shadowdark. And more importantly, the fun being presented organically is zanniness with an emphasis on creative solutions within that tone. == Which therefor means, the organic solution is giving more honest feedback about the world you have created. Follow the advice of other people commenting on the video in that case. If death awaits, allow your players to meet death. Would they lose an eye? Allow the loss of the eye. Otherwise, I advise in terms of following an organic path forward that the aim should be to make a world where you provide feedback to the players as well as responding to their feedback. Basically, use the time in your post game (maybe during Stars and Wishes for example or just time outside of game), to talk with your players about the tone of the game. It's your creation, show it to them. Or, if you have a particular inspiration, let the players know. The astute will take notice and the rest... well you can always just tell them directly. (Follow up Question) == Otherwise: Are there any common media you think would help bridge gap in expectations at the table? To help everyone better understand your creation. Perhaps there are their better touchstones the group needs to keep in mind when playing. Like, "the tone is Star Wars not Spaceballs" to return to my above example. I leave that to you. (Epilogue) Any way this goes, good luck with adding more consequences to the game. Might help curve some of the zanniness. And I see a fair few good voices giving excellent advice to that effect. I merely wished to offer my perspective in case it struck a different Bass line with you and helped you find a different tune that works better for you. == I mentioned the Tabletop Roleplaying Game Dungeon World and the Dark Souls video game series briefly. == I also referenced Legend of Zelda, Pokemon, the Persona video game series, the boards game Clue and Talisman, and Monopoly in passing.
I feel this. For me personally, I feel that when my players treat my world like a cartoon, it disrespects the time I've put into prepping the session and the world. I decided awhile ago I'm going to go with the moto of "It's my world, you just play in it." I'm not opposed to player having fun and laughing but when you cross the line and disrespect my time, I have an issue. I think alot of this stems form the past 10 years of dnd being seen as a meme joke game by many people and they honestly think it's what it's supposed to be. I've had players do really stupid thing and they immediately die. No death saves. No last minute heroic action. dead. i had a player bribe a giant ride it into a fight that was basically 20+ vs 4 and think he was going to win. When the player when down, I had him immediately beheaded. He'd spent the last 3 months making the game all about him and doing the over the top stuff you describe and I had had enough. I let him dig his hole and I buried him in it. Resolved the issue for at least a year.
The even better thing is when you have a full game of players that do the same thing you're talking about. Someone does something dumb and their characters react accordingly like it's a real world. You make a dumb adventurer that always causes problems and doesn't take danger seriously then people aren't going to adventure with you. Its a great experience having a party of players that believe in the world and it is a thing that can happen. But a massive part of that is having a DM that will punish dumb shit like you've discovered. Because if you give in to dumb shit then the players that do care are going to feel like they're in the wrong game.
When I GM, I feel like I have a duty to the game world to portray it faithfully and the way it looks in my mind's eye. This doesn't mean killing or maiming characters (because that's not what I usually see), but if an NPC feels like a PC isn't making sense or is insulting them, they'll either act confused or act insulted. If a player makes a decision that seems to violate common sense, I take it as a sign that they haven't understood the world, and I try to explain why I think their character would consider it a bad idea. I don't stop them from making the decision, but if certain consequences would be clear to the character, then I try to also make those consequences clear to the player, so that they can make a fair and informed decision. A simple example was in a recent game of The One Ring. The party were in an inn in a town that wasn't exactly hostile, but it was clear they didn't have a lot of money and didn't welcome outsiders. One of the characters was a singer, and he decided to throw down a busking hat in the middle of the inn without even asking the proprietor first. It seemed to me like this was a great way to at least get booed off stage and possibly even provoke a fight with the locals. It seemed clear to me that just singing would be fine, but making unsolicited requests for cash would not go down well with anyone. I spelled it out to the player, you can do that if you want, but you're asking money from poor people who don't like you, and you haven't even asked the owner if it's okay to use their inn for your side-hustle. You can sing, and that will be fine, but if you're throwing your hat out, I'm telling you it's not going to go well, and your character would know that. So how do you want to proceed? Well, he agreed to just sing without the busking hat, and he got a good roll, so everyone in the town was more friendly after that :)
I'd say set the expectation of tone up front. I've seen some really good rules over the years to reward players for staying within the tone of the game. 7th Sea for example rewards players for doing over the top in-genre swashbuckling activities, even if there is a higher risk in doing so. If the system has any sort of 'reward', you can set your expectations up front, and also reward them when they buy into it.
@@FamilyTableTop I should note that you are playing with kids, so there will be times they are naturally more zany. Most narrative based games have them. I'll give a few examples: 7th Sea Player: Performs a Swashbuckling Act (dramatic, heroic, or daring). GM Reward: Gains Drama Dice, which can be used for bonuses or narrative control. Player: Declares an action aligned with their Hubris (personal flaw). GM Reward: Gains a Drama Die, encouraging genre-appropriate flawed heroism. Houses of the Blooded Probably one of the best examples. Players engage in-genre, they earn Style Points GM Reward: Earns Style Points by leaning into the setting’s courtly drama. Player Engages in "Bad Form" (breaking social rules of Ven culture). GM Penalty: Narrator calls "Bad Form" and takes Style Points. Deadlands: Reloaded Player: Delivers an over-the-top genre-appropriate one-liner before a duel. GM Reward: Gains Fate Chips for thematic roleplaying. Pendragon Receive a check on certain traits and passions when acting more like your character in significant moments. These checks then are tested in the Winter Phase for potential upgrades. I think others have suggested not to feed the fire that goes against what you are looking for. I would agree with that. But you also need to set those expectations with the players or else it's unfair to give them a hard time for missing an otherwise invisible target.
Two separate issues Don't be the control freak as the DM, this as a player can ruin the experience. If it's a sandbox, let it be the sandbox. Don't tie it to the strict narrative you envisaged. Some players are used to the quick reset of computer/ online games with reset points where doing crazy stuff isn't punished. To my mind there should be real world consequences to their decisions. What would happen and if they happen to die, so be it. Players can use the "maintaining group cohesion" as an excuse to not get punished doing dumb things. As a DM you need to set the expectation that dumb things will be "realistically modelled" and that you have a role which is not to be a friend but an "interested observer". Ultimately it's your time and fun, and if it's not fun don't do it, find an outlet to make it fun again or find a different group/ activity to give you enjoyment. It's why I don't play miniature games with some people but will do other stuff with them, they suck the joy out of the gaming experience. It's not the win/ loss it's how they play, very litigious about everything and so I end up going pedantic and nobody enjoys the experience. I'll reluctantly do "malicious compliance" but it never ends well for anybody.
This reminds me of a moment from a campaign my brother played in. Two people in the party encountered a black hole, which they decided to jump into, thinking it would act like a wormhole or something. My brother's character wasn't present, so he didn't say anything. The conversation went something like this: "Are you sure you want to do that?" "Yes." "Really really sure?" "Yes." "Roll new characters."
This is why I mostly play solo games. Sometimes, you need to play a game and enjoy it the way it is meant to play. I know people want to have fun playing a game in their own way, but I don't enjoy playing a clown world I play clown world in real life. I play games to escape the real clown world. I never feel bad for players who make silly decisions because there are always consequences to silly decisions. Now, if someone made a mistake and it could really badly affect them, and I know they weren't just doing that to be silly, I go easy on them. But I've DM'ed some pretty grim dark games like "Warhammer: Hive of The Dead" and they learned real quickly that if you make a wrong move, you becomd unalived, and you need to really think everything through, otherwise you need to restart the adventure all over again. So I've already set up the expectation right off the bat that I enjoy games the way they are designed and that dying is a big part of the game, whether you like it or not. Cairn is like this, Shadowdark, etc. I don't even bother with D&D really because I tend to notice that people think of D&D more as a joke, while the other games I host are more challenging, scary, strategic, grim dark, exploratory, procedurally generated, and I tend to bring something new and different from the general norm these types are used to and because of this they don't play like goofballs anymore.
Oh man. Love this video. I’d love to interview/chat with you about this topic. There’s a lot going on and the advice/solution can’t be captured in comments. Sadly.
Just a couple quick thought. Don’t go down that route of “punishing” your players. If you do it’s easy to slip into that terrible DM vs Player dynamic, at that point you have failed. Yes, actions should have consequences. If you want your players to be more serious, make sure the villain reacts as a real villain would. Shove your hand into the campfire and grab a hot rock, don’t melt their hand off in punishment, but let them take appropriate damage which will lead to less effective use of their sword. Maybe they fumble with their spell components when casting (the dice are important). As far as solo play goes, it’s an excellent way to prime your skills and truly understand mechanics and procedures.
There are only two types of players: engaged, and bored. Engaged is good. Sometimes it is more demanding or troublesome but ultimately an engaged player will accept rulings they don’t like because they are invested in the game. A bored player is bad. Always. Maybe it’s the system, maybe it’s you, maybe they don’t really want to be there that night. But they derail fun for the rest of the table. The solution for me was realizing that nobody cares about your game as much as you do and they never will. So ultimately your job is not to make them care about your creative expression, or lore, or “awesome” house rules. It is to give them a frame work to play within and ultimately overcome challenges in as if it were any other kind of game.
(Long comment, apologies) I've been Dming for over 10 years, I've run long term games of up to 12 players, and I've run games for people from as young as 9 to as old as 65. This is not a competitive game, this is a *collaborative* game. That requires everyone to be working towards the same goals. I wouldn't maim and kill, or Punish right away, that's a little too harsh and fun ruining, it's too far the other extreme and an overcorrection. It kills experimentation and curiosity. But I _would_ push back. When a player makes a request for an action like, "Could I cut off my arm/pull out my eye and replace it with a mechanical arm?" or "Can I seduce the dragon?" The first question you should ask them is: "Why, what do you want to get out of this?" Then ask yourself: Is what they want something I can give/the tone of the world can support? If no, then you just say "That's not possible." If yes, then you think about how difficult that thing is to achieve, and relate that back to them. "Well, replacing one's body parts with magical constructs is really difficult. There are technomancers who can do it, but they are experts in their field. If you want to try to pull that off on your own, you are almost certainly going to lose your arm/eye, and possibly die. You are not a technomancer. But if you want to seek out one of them, that's a good goal to get what you want." Or "Not a chance in hell, but you might get it to hesitate in killing you for a split second by trying, and that might mean your allies can set up an attack." You can also set up degrees of success and failure. "On a nat20 you can seduce the dragon, but then you have to deal with the consequences. If you fail, it will target you more than anyone else." So you let them try to seduce a dragon, and really think about what that means. If they fail, it likely means death, if they succeed, it likely means they now belong to a dragon and will be trapped in its den forever. Dragons are known to be possessive and greedy. It's okay to tell them this is a possible outcome. So you don't always have to "Yes, and", you can also "No, but". But it's important that there's a dialogue as to what the outcomes you both _want_ are around the particular test/situation. Before killing them, present tangible consequences. For Murderhobo behavior, limit their options and have the world treat them like the chaotic forces they are. People don't want to deal with them, or hire them (or the people that do are awful and betray them). People don't pay them, they use them. Bounties get put out on their heads. They get arrested and sent on suicide missions to pay back their debt. When it's between them and a dragon, people _side with the dragon!_ If a player says they want to step off a cliff, tell them that they feel a sickening vertigo, and looking down they know a fall from this height could kill them. If they persist _then_ give them the result of that, damage and possible death. Permanent maiming/crippling as _punishment_ is often not much fun and just feels bad, (though just having it be a known consequence you tell them about before hand can be a good time) dying because you were dumb and tried something, is sometimes hilarious and looked back on fondly as a good lesson--I literally had a character do this: He and his party were trapped on a cliffside, well above a tree line. He said he wanted to jump down to the trees and catch himself on a branch. It was over a hundred foot drop just to the tree tops. I told him it was possible, but he would almost certainly die, very low odds of any success, and he would get hurt even on a success. He said he was going for it. I warned him once again, it was nearly impossible. He said, "But DM, I'm an elf." He jumped, I had him roll, he failed dramatically to grab the trees, hit dozens of branches on the way down, slammed into the ground, and died. He was also carrying various mutagenic potions on him, those exploded and began mutating his flesh. He laughed the hardest of us all. But later he asked if had actually been possible, and I told him if it had not been possible I wouldn't have asked for a roll. I would have just told him it was impossible. There's never a reason not to be clear on something like this with your players, you don't have to *SHOCK* them with consequences. You're the window to the world, so be transparent so they can see it clearly. The other side of this, aside from thinking of the world as a place where consequences occur, is to straight up talk to your players and ask them what kind of game they are looking for, and *tell them the tone of the game you are running.* Your world might not be boring, but that doesn't mean it's the one they want to play in. Maybe they want a chaotic cartoon power fantasy, and your world is more reasonable than that. So maybe they want a different game. Maybe you don't want to run the game they want to play. That's okay. But it's better just to talk it out than to punish your players. This is a game played for fun among friends, not some kind of test of judgment. Ask what they are after, and decide what you want to run, and see if there's a middle ground. If not, part ways and find people that are into your game style. But punishing your pals is a _very_ select style of hobby, and not one that yields good results without people opting into it.
@@Lurklen I appreciate the long comment and your great explanation of situations and outcomes. I think we agree largely. I’m not interested being subversive about consequences- I just don’t want to baby my players anymore.
@@FamilyTableTop lol, glad it was appreciated instead of annoying. I can go on, but I try not to say more than I need to to make my point (some points just suffer when given too glibly). Which is sensible. Just remember there are stages to growing up, we don't go from babies to adults, we grow gradually in between. If you do it gradually, and are clear with your players on the potential consequences of their actions, I think you'll get the results you're looking for.
Direct conversation with the players "I'm not enjoying this and I worked hard on it so I would appreciate you respect my game." Dont be afraid to stop the game and tell them to behave themselves or you are stopping the game now. You are not a punching bag. Player says I walk off the cliff, say" OK but you WILL die is that what you still want to do? " If they say yes then narrate the terrible way in which they die, no dice rolling. Don't be afraid to get rid of a toxic player if they won't fly right, they will drag everything down and cause good players to leave the group.
If you end of increasing the stakes of decisions (I think you should). However you should do it slowly over the course of 2-3 sessions so your players don’t complain if it gets a lot more difficult over the course of one week. edit: they may be doing silly things because they wanna have fun and don’t wanna be too serious
you are losing the point of playing games, it is to have FUN, and if being silly for them is fun, then let them do it, and if not stop playing, easy fix, not the right group to play with, end of, you are too obsessed
Players will always make funny dumb decisions no matter how serious you try to make it. But giving the reasonable response the world would actually make is what makes it fun. We play the game to hang out with friends and escape from life for a bit. We want to do dumb stuff and see what happens. They will have more fun just causing problems and seeing what happens. That being said, I still do not get the point of solo play. The main fun lies in playing with your friends, and they'll come up with a better story than you'll come up with on your own in your head. Play with your friends and embrace the stupidity they come up with.
Dude, your frustration can be felt in this video. Lots of top tier advice already, so I’ll just add - there is a social contract when playing these games. It isn’t you vs them. The players need to respect your game and if they aren’t, a conversation needs to be had with those individuals or the table as a whole about what they want to get out of it. If it doesn’t align with your game, it’s best to stop and do something else. There is no reason for you to be miserable.
Please don't try to address out-of-game problems in the game. It can often seem compelling, like it's how a story should go, but that's a trap. The you as a player inside the game is only a shadow cast from the you as a person outside the game, and is always less powerful and capable than your outside self. Even when you're the DM and inside the game you can snuff out the sun and flick the world away like an unwanted marble, the you outside of the game created the space for the game to exist in the first place. And your problem is that outside the game your players aren't taking the game seriously. So tell them what you put in the video, but stick to the "I"s. "I want to play along with y'all when you're having fun, but if I wind up making the world too silly, when I sit down to do prep I have trouble keeping it going. It's a lot easier for me to put together a real place than a bunch of jokes." And if somebody still cracks a joke, just no-sell it. "Okay, ha ha, but what do you really do?"
I got her book, then watched just 1 of her videos she recommended…and even though I've gamed on & off for over 40 years, and used at least 30 RPG systems, she taught me several things that never clicked and made it so I could game with or without dice or a system for the next 40 years.
Hey. You should really try online ttrpg. I play every week with friends. Sometime people miss a session or two, but the game goes on. I am GMing two massive campaigns, and it’s freaking awesome. This way you can team up with likeminded people.
Wow. That is a lot of a lot. I have thoughts. I dont know what your relationships with your other players are, but this could possibly end an acquaintanceship or two if you're not careful (or even if you are careful). Also, have you tried leaning into the wind and trying a session or two of a GM-less rpg? It will give you a chance to take a break, and it will give them a chance to shoulder some narrative responsibility, rather than just breaking your toys. It's a known fact that folks take better care of things they own and have invested in. I also have a question: do you think novelists feel like "losers?" If you were to take some time to write a short story, would you feel like a "loser?" I feel for you. You are very hard on yourself. I hope you consider looking into Stoicism. Being a "loser" isn't so bad.
The players might not take the world seriously, but gravity doesn't care about that. You step off a cliff, you fall. You walk in front of horse carriages, well... consequences. I even asked the players to have a backup character on the ready, because they will face some serious danger and might not survive. There's room for humorous social encounters, but if you mess with people... how would someone react in a real social encounter. Dnd is a world with different possibilities, but people in that world are treating it as very real (because they live in it).
How I play solo dnd without feeling like a loser: in some sense, I regard it as 'playtesting,' or even like playing solitaire. Heck, there are people who like to play chess against themselves. It's kind of like that - it has a precedent in other games and hobbies, as I see it.
That makes total sense… if I were going to learn a new wargame I would do the same thing. Do you continue to play solo after you become familiar with the system?
Your a parent so you know that if your children do bad things or stupid things there are consequences. You also know that if there are no consequences, or there are idle threats without follow through, they will continue to do those things. Same with the game. Actions have consequences and threats need to be followed through. You do something bad or stupid, and there is an immediate consequence, or a threat to stop or else. So if they talk bad to a guard, royalty, or god forbid a dragon, the NPC then looks them dead in the eye and says,"You should apologize or keep your mouth shut from now on, or I will reign a horror upon you the likes you have never seen before". Now you can point out to them, that there is this, that, and the other thing going on, which will lead them to believe that they can back up the threat. There are 12 or more guards holding their action with crossbows trained upon you, and at least 24 more that will be here within 5 seconds. You are within the royal chamber and there are 50 of the best trained fighters in the world (The royal knights of Vanquishing). They have all been bred and trained since birth to fight and protect the crown against hordes of enemies. This is a dragon, they can easily snap you in two and swallow the pieces before you can twitch a muscle. Then if they continue? You bring it down upon them. Inactions also have consequences. They refuse to help the poor shop keeper with the evil tax collector? The next day they find the shop keeper swinging from their own sign. They refuse to help the farmer find out what has been taking their livestock? At some point later when they pass by the farm house it is boarded up and they find out the entire family has been ripped apart. They refuse the kings plea to help find the necromancer that has been operating in the area? After sometime they hear that the region has all been turned to undead, and they are attacking other areas across the landscape while swelling their numbers daily. Also there are situations where there is no such thing as (Yes, but / no, but / or you can try) A lot of DM's think because you do not allow a player to try something or deny them from doing something stupid, you are taking away player agency. You do however have to explain why, and informing them of the consequences is not taking away agency, it is making your players understand that there are limitations and repercussions in certain situations that can not and will not change the end result of those actions. Also for the sake of time and heart ache, you simply are not willing to waste everyone's time by going through the motions. No you can't lift the castle, as strong as you are that is impossible. The only outcomes are: 1. You get hurt 2. You damage a minuscule piece of the wall OR 3. You both damage a tiny part of the wall and you hurt yourself. No you can not try to take on 100 armed enemies while shackled without weapons, it does not matter if you are a powerful monk. This is bad place and time to try and escape, and if you want to do this the only outcome will be certain death for you and everyone else, so NO I will not allow you to do it, unless everyone agrees and than wants to spend the rest of the game rolling up new characters.
Imo it's less punishment its more FAFO, Stupid games win stupid prizes etc. How would the dragon actually react, how would the villain react. "you're taking away player agency" - nah if my human agency wants me to play in traffic the cars aren't saying "yes and we're all made out of foam"
I'm certain that there's many comments mentioning logical consequence of foolhardy choice... Here's an idea...if the group (or just a player or two) starts a brawl at the inn/tavern, they'll most likely be apprehended and jailed...have that be for a month...and then have the player(s) roll up a new character...then for fun...it's now 1:1 time for a month...and each player rolls a save vs disease each actual day...prison is filthy... Just a thought...
While I don't necessarily agree with the Tit-for-Tat death spiral that punishing players for being stupid/doing stupid things can bring, I do think there is something to be said for rewarding poor behaviour. Might be a little to late to introduce [Player Grading]. There is also something to be said for leaning into what interests your payers, to a degree. ...not very helpful I know. 😅
I got her six bro. Try this…Two enchanted stones mysteriously appear in your world. Shaped like giant walnuts, they are filled with eldritch fortitude. When your players begin to misbehave, the stones begin to vibrate…erupting into a randomly generated and possibly even deadly curse upon the offenders! Then you can relax and smile, maybe even take a smoke break. Lol
@@timothyhanson731 I did like the Zany stuff in Shadowdark because it seemed like my players were having fun - and I think they were having fun (too much fun). I think the Shadowdark game helped me realize that the game can become “too much fun”, and when it does, players become detached from their characters and the game. Playing in Dragonbane I have been trying to ground things better - like a motorcycle trying to do 160mph, the front wheel keeps lifting up from the ground… I’m realizing that there is a balance and that balance is very important. I’m just not good at being the balance.
@@FamilyTableTop I would suggest instead of just killing them, make them justify their actions. So if they want a mechanical arm, before they cut their arm off, remind them they don't have a mechanical arm to replace their arm with or the knowledge. Then prod them on things like where they plan to learn that skill or get that arm. That way they can still feel free to be creative, but you will teach them to be more grounded in their ideas.
The advice you received is valid, but incomplete. Ideally, the only reason you should be playing solo RPG's is because you want to. I understand some people play them because they can't find a group, or nobody in their group wants to try another system. Personally, I would happily play a solo game to learn and adopt good ideas into my own gaming. The FIRST thing you should do is talk with your players. Sit down with them and explain your feelings as clearly and concisely as possible. Explain to them what you're looking for from them, and what you want out of the game. Then, you listen to what they have to say. If what they want out of a RPG is completely different from you, and you're not able to find common ground, then you have to face the possibility they may not be the right players for you. As much as we would love to be able to play RPG's with all of our friends and family, the reality is people are different and want different things, and sometimes those wants are simply not compatible. One of my best and oldest friends also plays RPG's, and they like to do goofy stuff like tie up a kobold to a stick and wave it around like a flag even though they're playing a lawful good paladin. I like to run more serious games where the players feel the suspense that they could die at any moment. We do not play RPG's together, but neither of us are losing sleep over it. If you do have common ground, then you should all mutually strive to keep your game inside those boundaries. It is not your job alone to accomplish this. Your players have to respect the bounds and goals too, because you are not their babysitter. All of you have agency and accountability as collaborative storytellers. But sometimes players get carried away, and that is when all those GMing tips come into play. When a player deviates from the boundaries you've all agreed to, you use your infinite GM power of "yes, and..." Yes, they do get to attempt what they wanted, and then either you redirect them back into the fold or let them suffer the consequences. If your bard player rolls a natural 20 to woo a dragon, the dragon still breathes fire on them, because not even a natural 20 can make the impossible possible. In this case, the dragon is offended over the fact a lowly humanoid (whom might as well be cattle in relation) believes itself to be worthy to pair with great and mighty dragon.
Hot tip hang up a blanket with a cool design maybe fantasy. Reasonable price easy to do and improves background greatly for you viewers. Also people love sound effects. Lol also cheap.
No, dude, you're not portraying your world like a joke. Players are players. They are there to laugh, eat snacks, drink caffeine and have fun. So, yeah, they're going to make characters named Poopy McButthole from a long line of noble McButthole's from the far away barony of Turdlington. That just is. Sure, you can point out to them that you are trying to build a theme game and ask them to make serious characters but, in the end, players come to game for all manner of reasons, including just being the guy that cracks jokes at all points. In the end, just give them a warning about consequences and then have the consequences occur and let the players do what they will?
@@FamilyTableTop I reject the character and backstory outright and restate my game theme to the player. If they can't come into line, maybe they don't get to play. If the entire table can't buy into the game theme, cool, someone else can run, and, hey, guess what, my paladin is named Jack Mihoff. Now, all of that said, if the game isn't really based around a theme and the players are telling me that want to have a silly time at the table, no problem, the main villain can be an insane wizard who runs dungeons like a game show? I guess I'm saying, read the table? If everyone is just our for silliness, read into that and have bad guy vampire cowboys using boomerangs as their main weapons?
Honestly, though, I think you should try soloing a game. I mean, youre holding Alone in Deepfall Breach right there in your hands. There is literally no barrier to entry. Why not take it out for a spin? Think of it like this: if you were the conductor of an orchestra and you took an hour or two out of your day to play the flute for the sole purpose of enjoying the expeience of making music only for yourself, would you feel like a loser? I doubt it. In fact, I would bet that it would make you a better conductor, it might even reconnect you to to he creative core that made you fall in love with music to begin with. There is something deeply beautiful and rewarding about creating something wonderful that exists for your enjoyment alone. As a GM you put so much effort and creativity into your games for the gratification of your players. Give youself permission to turn that light inward from time to time. IDK if solo gaming is for you. I can tell you that it has deepened both my experience of the hobby I love and my appreciation of my own creativity and respect for my inner life. I believe solo play to be a profoundly meaningful and enjoyable aspect of the hobby. Will you? I dont know, and neither will you unless and until you try.
I think that you’ve hit the nail on the head. The DM is in charge, not the players. The world is your creation, not theirs, and actions should have consequences in line with the lore that you have created. A note of caution: If you punish your players too severely early on, it might lead to your players being disheartened and resentful. They have put time and effort into creating their own characters. Maybe a warning at the start of the session?
I don't know that "the DM is in charge, not the players" is likely to produce a positive result, either for the game or for real-life friendships. Storytelling is more of a series of social contracts between all players at the table, including the GM. Session Zero and safety tools exist to navigate those social contracts.
Great video! It’s sad to see the death of a campaign- all of your hard work slowly devolving into stupid jokes and uninterested and distracted players- as a thought, you play video games solo- maybe you want to be at the helm of your own gaming experience? - sounds like a classic case of the DM’s lament- advice: stick a stake through it’s heart- your game is dead. 😵
I feel like this is just the reality of TTRPGs. They are everything and nothing all at once, by which I mean literlaly every player expects and wants different things from a TTRPG and no one is wrong about what they want. The difficulty is most people don't want the same things. A common solution, as I see many suggesting here, is that you deliver appropriate consequences for your world. It's your game world, it's your prep, you get to decide what's appropriate. And that's no worse or better than any other way you might resolve this problem, but if the consequence is unhappy or uninterested players, then is it worth it? There are also comments here suggesting that sometimes the group you have isn't a good fit, but new people isn't ever a solution in my opinion and I don't personally understand how people could just find new strangers to befriend for the sake of a gameplay style. You, like me, seem to be interested specifically in playing with family and friends. That means you are limited to the way in which they want to play the game. If that sounds horrible, don't play. You might just be struggling to reconcile or align your hobbies/interests with family connection, but maybe that's not possible if one or more of you dislike some aspect of the gameplay. You can't make someone like what you like, but you can certainly try. So I'd suggest having your family and friends play your way and see how it goes. Maybe your realism or reactivity will be compelling and interesting, but it could also be a disappointment. If it's the former, great! If it's the latter, maybe the types of TTRPG experiences your group are looking for arent what you're looking for, in which case you find something new to try or stop agonizing / brooding over how to make things work in such a way thay everyone will be happy.
AI is very close to taking the burden of Dming because it is a burden no matter how you cut it. Even with amazing perfect players at the table. An most times things are definitely less than perfect.
It sounds like there needs to be a conversation about the tone of the game is all. Your players think they are playing something on the silly side and you are trying to be more serious. It should be pretty clear that those silly things won’t work in your world if you mostly stick to your more serious theme. They don’t need to be autokilled but Dragonbane is a pretty deadly game, the problem will resolve itself once you guide the tone in the desired direction.
Keep it simple....stupid actions gets stupid prizes. Roll those percentile three times take note high and low rolls from 50. More high or more lows in three rolls. That system can determine almost anything. Reactions, what happens, villain actions, ECT. With the cut off arm thing ok give me a med check then con save fairly high ok you haven't gone into shock if made that now med save if failed give me those death saves. That's before spell crafting into arm rolls etc.
There is definitely no substitute for discipline here. 'Reward dramatic roleplaying and stifle unserious input', is simply good advice. It almost seems so obvious you wouldn't think to do it. But, it's a soft rule you must enforce like it's a hard rule, because 'dumb' grows unsustainably. You need to point out that it's not kosher here. Like a lewd t-shirt at a wedding. Clever funny is good, 'Dumb and Dumber' is not. If someone answers a dramatic moment with a fart joke, literally ignore them and ask another player. Then reward that new player for their dramatic choice. This will probably cure the 'dumb' real fast. Be dismissive but informative.
If all your players want a dumb zany game and you push consequences on them you will lose your players bc they wont enjoy it. In this case you need to decide if that is the type of world you want to play. A player setting mismatch can kill the game. Now, if one or two players, mainly young to teenage players, are being dumb while everyone else is trying to be serious, give them consequences. Just know they will slowly pull back from them game as they don't enjoy it as much.
Why do players not take the world seriously? Marvel movies! Even if the main plot is dead seriously there is always so much comic relief that it is easy to take everything as a joke. Players copy that.
Punishing the players is equally nonsensical as dumbing the world down. Talk with your players, and tell them you are not happy with playing cartoonish adventures, but some players do want that and if you punish them then you might create resentment to the hobby and they will not play either with you. If you do not have the luxury to simple look for a different group, since the players are friends and family, then I would recommend making a deal with them, one campaign for you and then one for them. Like having one serious one in which the players try to take it serious and then one in which they can play cartoonish to their hearts content. But do ot punish players for their preferences, since that will usually lead to nobody want to play with you since you failed to properly communicate with the players about expectations and preferences you have.
I wouldn't call it punishment, but rather the second way you phrased it as "make your world be real." If they do want to jump off a great height, then allow that "real" moment demonstrate the effects of gravity. "Roleplay solves everything." - Shonner Roleplay the world, and let it react believably within the genre your going for. Behave and believe you are the character you choose to inhabit when they perform those antics. If players say something out of touch in the setting, then have the NPCs shame them as some crazed insane person. If they anger a dragon then breathe fire. I don't think viewing it as a "Solo RPG" is the way to go, simply use the game mechanics for the dragon in this example. You don't have to instant kill them as "punishment." There could also be other reasons that I am guessing at here for a longer answer. 1a. This could also be an issue of Expectations not aligning with the actual Experience. Did you have a first session that establishes expectations? Did you decide on setting and genre? What was the desired tone at the table? To what degree is everyone in character (somewhere on the spectrum of party game vs. always in character)? 1b. Was there any co-creation for the world? This is a natural way to make players care more about the world. Will Wright (game designer for Sim City, Spore, The Sims, etc.) mentioned this phenomenon where players start destructive when simply presented with a premade city; the players would test the limits of that city by destroying some of it, and eventually when the dust settled they build up their own city to care for like a garden. 2. This could be an issue of quantity and quality. Are there too many players? If quantity is too much then this can lend to less time for tension to build up. Are you playing too frequently? This could mean players are getting burnt out too fast so they seek a way to change the routine. 3. Maybe there is an issue in motivations. What drives a person to play a TTRPG other than for "fun" or for a "social event?" These examples are not all encompassing (surely there are more drives than 3!), and while a player can experience multiple drives they should be ranked by preference. So character driven may be a player's primary preference followed by challenge driven and so on: Challenge driven = desire to achieve and overcome an obstacle in game mechanics or a puzzling situation presented by the GM Story driven = create an interesting scene latching onto concepts from linear media such as voice accents, character arcs, archetypes, twists, and scene editing mechanics (if the game has them); the story is the desired by-product of play. Character driven = Behave and believe as a character in another world that pursues their own goals while overcoming conflict; the act of roleplaying in the moment is the goal here especially when the immersive flow state takes over. 4. Fear of roleplaying sincerely. Sometimes there is a reaction of nervous laughter that happens to people in an uncomfortable situation; what you describe could be a similar reaction by injecting a quip to alleviate stress instead trying to be genuinely immersed in the roleplay.
@@timh797 these are really helpful examples- thank you for writing this out. I will try to play attention to our sessions to weigh out what be happening in the world.
I think you are looking at this the wrong way. I hear this advice a lot, "punish your players for not taking the game as serious you do". But I think the REAL problem is that the players don't care about this world. And you '"treating the game as a solo campaign that the players get to be in" is not going to change that. The real fix, IMO, is to *give players ownership*. Some games let players help build the world. 'Powered by the Apocalypse' games are usually good at this, especially FELLOWSHIP. Also the OSR game BEYOND THE WALL. But you can do this is any game. Ask the players lots of questions about their characters' place in the world. Who do they respect? Who do they hate? Who helped them when they were at their lowest? And then bring those elements and NPCs into the game. The other thing is, maybe some of these players don't really want to be playing RPGs - I think you've mentioned your kids specifically as "rather playing Fortnight with their friends" or something. So that makes me wonder if maybe they would have more fun doing something else with you. And if you insist on them playing an RPG, you shouldn't be surprised when they get bored and act disruptively. Of course part of being a parent is making your kids do things they rather not do, including socializing with the family.
dont know what to think about that. If you are not aligned with your players and punish them for it... well you WILL GM alone. There is nothing wrong with gonzo stuff, not every game needs to be dead serious... the goal it to have fun. When players do stupid shit, the world can respond, i am not sure about the boom you dead dumb guy is the most positive way to address the issue.
Dumb, dumb, dumb! There's a computer programming theory: garbage in, garbage out. The game needs needs to grow with the family, brother. The zaniness was is great for the little ones, but make it like life, with consequences. Better leatning in game, than the real world. It's harsh.
I feel sorry for you man. You need a group that fits better. But in an effort to fix what you have: "Hey folks, I feel like the group is not taking the game and the world seriously. Going forward if you threaten a shopkeeper, the law will come. If you try marry a dragon? Roll to avoid a firebreath as this dragon doesn't get in relationships with its food.
I played a solo RPG, its called a Chose your own Adventure book. There is no interaction in a Solo RPG, there is only you talking to yourself, making the dice rolls which you can cheat at and who would question it? TTRPG's are a social interactive hobby. I think the term you wish to use is world building and creation crafting. Even then, just talking to yourself is only giving you feedback from yourself. Outside entities that you trust will still need to be sought out for a better more rounded answer. Which is still social interacting with others.
If the character wants to marry the dragon, then let ‘em roll for it. 1d20. Natural 20…the dragon accepts and they tie the knot. Player gets to roll up a new character. 1 - 19…the dragon takes offense and lights them up like a Christmas Tree.
Honestly, my friend, it sounds like you need a more mature group. If your players aren't willing to respect the effort that you put into providing a fun and entertaining experience for them than you really need to reset with a new group.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
This is when you have to switch hats and become a referee over just a "yes, and" storyteller. Players are free to have their characters do what they will in THE world, but that does not mean that agency is free of consequences. Subconsciously, this may be what your players are looking for. The players may be testing the envelope to see where the real stakes and consequences begin for their characters. Your players may have become disengaged because there is no edge to that envelope. You may find that the players reengage once you introduce consequences to some of the more outrageous actions the characters are taking.
Yeah...what Krafty said...
Absolutely. If you think about it, a game where you compromise and let the players win all the time isn't even a game. A game has winning and losing conditions.
There is a HUGE difference between
1. Punishing your players.
2. Providing consequences for PCs.
One is personal, and aims to "punish". Consequences do not involve punishment, just consequences - things that would naturally happen.
You try to seduce a Dragon. A Nat 20 will have the Dragon laughing hysterically. If they don't take that as a queue to run, they get eaten the next turn. ZERO punishment there, just consequence. The language matters in terms of how we as GMs (or players) see the table.
It’s not “solo role-playing”; it’s “solitaire play-testing!” lol.
solo play is good for coming up with possible dialog, adding in henchmen and minions, creating side quests. like anything, even GMs need to 'practice'.
as others had stated, it gives GMs the ability to playtest. this also provides the GM the opportunity to adjust the story to better fit the players/characters.
…so you are doing solo play in conjunction with your multiplayer games?
Am I understanding that correctly?
@FamilyTableTop yes, it let's me see various scenes in advance. from this, I can add or remove elements that can be problematic.
this also gives me the ability to present henchmen/minions instead of the actual villain. by doing this, I can make the primary villain seem much more villainous.
I can also prep a variety of clues for future problems as well as 'red herrings'. this keeps players guessing at the different information provided, to which is relevant and which is not.
my campaign is a true open sandbox, with events unfolding around the characters. some things they directly influence, some events they have nothing to do with, but the fact that they occur, could be important later on.
solo play - play testing, helps me decide which events I want to include and when.
Tone is set by the GM. If the players don't match that tone, it's probably time to find new players. I know that's not always the easiest thing to accomplish, but there's really no running away from that. First thing you can try is to communicate honestly to the players, and let them know what sort of game you want to run, and ask them if they buy in to that. If not, you have your answer. If so, hold them to it. When they do or say things that seem contrary to the type of game you are trying to run, remind them of that. If they persist, they are telling you without saying so directly that they don't want to play the game you want to run anymore.
The number one reason for running solo games for me, is to learn the rules or to test a scenario or encounter..
And when you play rpgs with a group it's a learning experience, for both sides..
Playing solo can give you great insights into how to play a sandbox style rpg, how to throw out unconnected items, events, NPCs, monsters etc. then use your imagination to pull them together so they all make sense. It also teaches how to improvise, use random tables etc. etc.
And it's a way to get familiar with the rules of a new rpg.
On the topic of dumb actions from players or any actions from players, it's great fun to make sure there are consequences for what they do. Even getting treasure and taking it back to a town might go badly if the treasure belonged to someone who is now dead. Consequences and stakes are cool. This adds tension and can make things much more exciting because that next dice roll or action could result in your character's death.
As an aside I thought you could always marry a dragon. You don't allow that in your world? Wierd!!
If your players had the same passion for the game you have, they'd be GMs like you are.
I spoke about frustrations like this in our 2nd or 3rd solo campaign vid. I hope it works out for you.
I agree with making them pay for dumb things. They need to take it seriously
Young players just like to heckle and make light of the game world... 🤷♀️
They are not used to fictional content with high stakes and serious tones and do not know how to properly deal with it...
Take a look at the kind of content they usually watch on TV and YT...
This mindset is also prevalent in people that play single player video game RPGs. They will just do whatever they feel like because it's "just a game". Attack friendly NPCs, use cheesy tactics that would make people groan, abuse bugs, etc. Because they are treating it as a simple game where they just want to win as opposed to a hobby that involves people collaborating in order to experience a shared story.
As for Solo RPGs, Halo was always best played as a LAN party (like a TTRPG group),
Without that, playing the campaign solo is still pretty fun. I don't see solo RPGs as very different from that.
Like you said, you control your level of buy-in. Be that blowing off steam after work or white-knuckling a boss fight. Online RPGs were, for a long while, exclusively solo adventures.
I interpret the question as How can I endure my own company long enough to enjoy a solo game? It's a challenge sometimes. But it's rewarding to forge that relationship with yourself.
😂 LOL, that’s a really good way to rephrase the thought… it’s a little sad when you say it that way though. 🥲
I have the opposite with my Wildsea players, there are times where they just take things too seriously and are straight-up paranoid. They were camping overnight in the woods, and I had a tonne of fun (unintentionally... and then intentionally) freaking them out thinking they were being stalked by some kind of eldritch terror in the dark, when it was actually just a fairly typical red squirrel of above average intelligence, looking for a stash of insects it had hidden away in a tree.
Meanwhile, I just introduced time travel into my Wildsea campaign (the expansion practically dares you to do it, while explaining that you almost absolutely shouldn't do it), and after being very nervous about it, it went over unbelievably well. My players are usually pretty reserved with their comments, but couldn't contain their excitement (even straight-up giddiness) after we finished that session!
I love this.
Hey FTT, wanted to reverse roles and ask a question here. Had to think about how to phrase this because I'm really trying to get at are the questions:
== "What in your players lives are they using as a reference to solving the problems of your world?
== What references have you in common with them?
And,
Do you mention out of game sources of inspiration to your players and let them know that if they use that reference they will understand the tone and approaches that work harmoniously within your setting?"
I didn't want to ask those in RUclips comments though. Seemed like the wrong place and time. If thinking about those helps frame what I mean while you read on by my question, or gives you better guidance about what I'm getting at, well, then cool. :D I settled on the following to ask.
I wanted to ask about touchstones in your game. Touchstones in the case referring to common media for your game that everyone uses to draw upon to reference tone and themes, actions and... well just the base logic of the storytelling really.
Are your touchstone helping your group stay on the same page or do you need to re-approach those with your group so that you and your players better know what kind of game you are playing?
To explain, (TLDR)
I ask because your recent stream with Mr. Dunder_Moose got the conversation going about fudging in the Dungeon's Dissent Discord, but got me thinking about Appendix N. Which is important to the BrOSR folks when they run AD&D. Simply put, there is logic to be found in having that common ground about Inspirational Reading, Music, and Other Stuff for the game. Having those touchstones avoids exactly what you're talking about when it comes to this disconnect. It's the difference between showing up expecting to play Star Wars (Episodes 4-6) and instead playing out Spaceballs. Tones all different, need to turn everything off and turn it back on again. Adjust the video settings to make the joke.
(The longer read when you have time.)
== Furthermore, in some of the examples you used for this video, you remind me of that same core logic found in games to help guide decision making. Whether it's the Legend of Zelda, Pokemon, a Persona game, any edition of D&D, Clue, Monopoly, the Talisman board game, or some other board game or video game.... base line, they teach the player through gameplay how to play the game. We do the same thing with a primer and setting tone early as GM's about the game. And sometimes we have to re-up that and demonstrate it again and again.
== In the video, for example, you're talking about dropping off a cliff to see if their is a hidden ledge, that's a Dark Souls gameplay challenge 101. Important for discovering hidden items, just like how Link would place a bomb in old Zelda games next to a crumbling wall to discover hidden passages. Speaking of which, didn't your son start playing Dark Souls and Elden Ring recently? Cool, he may have learned that strategy for those games. Now he needs to learn what strategies apply to your Dragonbane setting. And the challenges therein. Either through that same trial and error, organically learning, or by some other method. Same goes for all your other players.
== Allow me to expand that a bit, I'll take a page out of the TTRPG Dungeon World to help. You have a whole group of different people. Your son, your wife, your ex wife, and so on. Each person at the table have lives which present their own unique, or at least distinct, challenges and problems. To face these, they have to have "playbooks", just like in Dungeon World different classes do. Keep in mind, I'm not being one hundred percent literal. Playbooks in this case simply refers to the "moves"(as in strategies) that people use to approach and solve problems in their daily lives. Lots of people can cook as a move, but a Chef will Cook, with a capital "C" because they need that to be one of their core moves in their lives. And they will cook to solve other problems in their lives too.
== Where I'm headed is, if your setting doesn't come with any sort of inorganic method to get a feel for it such as a playbook, or a least a forewarning like "Yo, you will get the most out of this setting if you think about (relevant stories) or thinking about this tone", or even like a Primer or anything similar. Then the learning curve is based one what is happening at the table organically. Plus whatever strategies seem relevant from the rest of a given player's life and the character they are playing.
== Which leads me to say, for your deliberation, that if your players don't have any sort of common touchstones which make the experience "distinct" from the rest of their lives and give them reason to approach the experience differently (to use different moves) it makes perfect sense that your players are being creative and to some extent zanniness. That's the organically forming tone of your game night. At least as we have seen it as the youtube and discord audience. Whether you have been playing Dragonbane or Shadowdark. And more importantly, the fun being presented organically is zanniness with an emphasis on creative solutions within that tone.
== Which therefor means, the organic solution is giving more honest feedback about the world you have created. Follow the advice of other people commenting on the video in that case. If death awaits, allow your players to meet death. Would they lose an eye? Allow the loss of the eye. Otherwise, I advise in terms of following an organic path forward that the aim should be to make a world where you provide feedback to the players as well as responding to their feedback. Basically, use the time in your post game (maybe during Stars and Wishes for example or just time outside of game), to talk with your players about the tone of the game. It's your creation, show it to them. Or, if you have a particular inspiration, let the players know. The astute will take notice and the rest... well you can always just tell them directly.
(Follow up Question)
== Otherwise:
Are there any common media you think would help bridge gap in expectations at the table?
To help everyone better understand your creation. Perhaps there are their better touchstones the group needs to keep in mind when playing. Like, "the tone is Star Wars not Spaceballs" to return to my above example. I leave that to you.
(Epilogue)
Any way this goes, good luck with adding more consequences to the game. Might help curve some of the zanniness. And I see a fair few good voices giving excellent advice to that effect. I merely wished to offer my perspective in case it struck a different Bass line with you and helped you find a different tune that works better for you.
== I mentioned the Tabletop Roleplaying Game Dungeon World and the Dark Souls video game series briefly.
== I also referenced Legend of Zelda, Pokemon, the Persona video game series, the boards game Clue and Talisman, and Monopoly in passing.
I feel this. For me personally, I feel that when my players treat my world like a cartoon, it disrespects the time I've put into prepping the session and the world. I decided awhile ago I'm going to go with the moto of "It's my world, you just play in it." I'm not opposed to player having fun and laughing but when you cross the line and disrespect my time, I have an issue. I think alot of this stems form the past 10 years of dnd being seen as a meme joke game by many people and they honestly think it's what it's supposed to be. I've had players do really stupid thing and they immediately die. No death saves. No last minute heroic action. dead. i had a player bribe a giant ride it into a fight that was basically 20+ vs 4 and think he was going to win. When the player when down, I had him immediately beheaded. He'd spent the last 3 months making the game all about him and doing the over the top stuff you describe and I had had enough. I let him dig his hole and I buried him in it. Resolved the issue for at least a year.
The even better thing is when you have a full game of players that do the same thing you're talking about. Someone does something dumb and their characters react accordingly like it's a real world. You make a dumb adventurer that always causes problems and doesn't take danger seriously then people aren't going to adventure with you. Its a great experience having a party of players that believe in the world and it is a thing that can happen. But a massive part of that is having a DM that will punish dumb shit like you've discovered. Because if you give in to dumb shit then the players that do care are going to feel like they're in the wrong game.
When I GM, I feel like I have a duty to the game world to portray it faithfully and the way it looks in my mind's eye. This doesn't mean killing or maiming characters (because that's not what I usually see), but if an NPC feels like a PC isn't making sense or is insulting them, they'll either act confused or act insulted.
If a player makes a decision that seems to violate common sense, I take it as a sign that they haven't understood the world, and I try to explain why I think their character would consider it a bad idea. I don't stop them from making the decision, but if certain consequences would be clear to the character, then I try to also make those consequences clear to the player, so that they can make a fair and informed decision.
A simple example was in a recent game of The One Ring. The party were in an inn in a town that wasn't exactly hostile, but it was clear they didn't have a lot of money and didn't welcome outsiders. One of the characters was a singer, and he decided to throw down a busking hat in the middle of the inn without even asking the proprietor first. It seemed to me like this was a great way to at least get booed off stage and possibly even provoke a fight with the locals. It seemed clear to me that just singing would be fine, but making unsolicited requests for cash would not go down well with anyone. I spelled it out to the player, you can do that if you want, but you're asking money from poor people who don't like you, and you haven't even asked the owner if it's okay to use their inn for your side-hustle. You can sing, and that will be fine, but if you're throwing your hat out, I'm telling you it's not going to go well, and your character would know that. So how do you want to proceed? Well, he agreed to just sing without the busking hat, and he got a good roll, so everyone in the town was more friendly after that :)
I'd say set the expectation of tone up front. I've seen some really good rules over the years to reward players for staying within the tone of the game. 7th Sea for example rewards players for doing over the top in-genre swashbuckling activities, even if there is a higher risk in doing so. If the system has any sort of 'reward', you can set your expectations up front, and also reward them when they buy into it.
@@tickingtimebobgaming can you give a couple examples of those reward mechanics?
@@FamilyTableTop I should note that you are playing with kids, so there will be times they are naturally more zany.
Most narrative based games have them. I'll give a few examples:
7th Sea
Player: Performs a Swashbuckling Act (dramatic, heroic, or daring).
GM Reward: Gains Drama Dice, which can be used for bonuses or narrative control.
Player: Declares an action aligned with their Hubris (personal flaw).
GM Reward: Gains a Drama Die, encouraging genre-appropriate flawed heroism.
Houses of the Blooded
Probably one of the best examples.
Players engage in-genre, they earn Style Points
GM Reward: Earns Style Points by leaning into the setting’s courtly drama.
Player Engages in "Bad Form" (breaking social rules of Ven culture).
GM Penalty: Narrator calls "Bad Form" and takes Style Points.
Deadlands: Reloaded
Player: Delivers an over-the-top genre-appropriate one-liner before a duel.
GM Reward: Gains Fate Chips for thematic roleplaying.
Pendragon
Receive a check on certain traits and passions when acting more like your character in significant moments. These checks then are tested in the Winter Phase for potential upgrades.
I think others have suggested not to feed the fire that goes against what you are looking for. I would agree with that.
But you also need to set those expectations with the players or else it's unfair to give them a hard time for missing an otherwise invisible target.
Two separate issues
Don't be the control freak as the DM, this as a player can ruin the experience. If it's a sandbox, let it be the sandbox. Don't tie it to the strict narrative you envisaged.
Some players are used to the quick reset of computer/ online games with reset points where doing crazy stuff isn't punished. To my mind there should be real world consequences to their decisions. What would happen and if they happen to die, so be it. Players can use the "maintaining group cohesion" as an excuse to not get punished doing dumb things. As a DM you need to set the expectation that dumb things will be "realistically modelled" and that you have a role which is not to be a friend but an "interested observer".
Ultimately it's your time and fun, and if it's not fun don't do it, find an outlet to make it fun again or find a different group/ activity to give you enjoyment. It's why I don't play miniature games with some people but will do other stuff with them, they suck the joy out of the gaming experience. It's not the win/ loss it's how they play, very litigious about everything and so I end up going pedantic and nobody enjoys the experience. I'll reluctantly do "malicious compliance" but it never ends well for anybody.
This reminds me of a moment from a campaign my brother played in. Two people in the party encountered a black hole, which they decided to jump into, thinking it would act like a wormhole or something. My brother's character wasn't present, so he didn't say anything. The conversation went something like this:
"Are you sure you want to do that?"
"Yes."
"Really really sure?"
"Yes."
"Roll new characters."
This is why I mostly play solo games. Sometimes, you need to play a game and enjoy it the way it is meant to play.
I know people want to have fun playing a game in their own way, but I don't enjoy playing a clown world
I play clown world in real life. I play games to escape the real clown world.
I never feel bad for players who make silly decisions because there are always consequences to silly decisions.
Now, if someone made a mistake and it could really badly affect them, and I know they weren't just doing that to be silly, I go easy on them.
But I've DM'ed some pretty grim dark games like "Warhammer: Hive of The Dead" and they learned real quickly that if you make a wrong move, you becomd unalived, and you need to really think everything through, otherwise you need to restart the adventure all over again. So I've already set up the expectation right off the bat that I enjoy games the way they are designed and that dying is a big part of the game, whether you like it or not.
Cairn is like this, Shadowdark, etc.
I don't even bother with D&D really because I tend to notice that people think of D&D more as a joke, while the other games I host are more challenging, scary, strategic, grim dark, exploratory, procedurally generated, and I tend to bring something new and different from the general norm these types are used to and because of this they don't play like goofballs anymore.
Oh man. Love this video. I’d love to interview/chat with you about this topic. There’s a lot going on and the advice/solution can’t be captured in comments. Sadly.
@@PowerWordThrill would you mind messaging me on discord so that we can chat about this more?
Just a couple quick thought. Don’t go down that route of “punishing” your players. If you do it’s easy to slip into that terrible DM vs Player dynamic, at that point you have failed. Yes, actions should have consequences. If you want your players to be more serious, make sure the villain reacts as a real villain would. Shove your hand into the campfire and grab a hot rock, don’t melt their hand off in punishment, but let them take appropriate damage which will lead to less effective use of their sword. Maybe they fumble with their spell components when casting (the dice are important). As far as solo play goes, it’s an excellent way to prime your skills and truly understand mechanics and procedures.
There are only two types of players: engaged, and bored.
Engaged is good. Sometimes it is more demanding or troublesome but ultimately an engaged player will accept rulings they don’t like because they are invested in the game.
A bored player is bad. Always. Maybe it’s the system, maybe it’s you, maybe they don’t really want to be there that night. But they derail fun for the rest of the table.
The solution for me was realizing that nobody cares about your game as much as you do and they never will. So ultimately your job is not to make them care about your creative expression, or lore, or “awesome” house rules. It is to give them a frame work to play within and ultimately overcome challenges in as if it were any other kind of game.
That’s a really good idea.
(Long comment, apologies) I've been Dming for over 10 years, I've run long term games of up to 12 players, and I've run games for people from as young as 9 to as old as 65. This is not a competitive game, this is a *collaborative* game. That requires everyone to be working towards the same goals.
I wouldn't maim and kill, or Punish right away, that's a little too harsh and fun ruining, it's too far the other extreme and an overcorrection. It kills experimentation and curiosity. But I _would_ push back.
When a player makes a request for an action like, "Could I cut off my arm/pull out my eye and replace it with a mechanical arm?" or "Can I seduce the dragon?" The first question you should ask them is: "Why, what do you want to get out of this?" Then ask yourself: Is what they want something I can give/the tone of the world can support? If no, then you just say "That's not possible." If yes, then you think about how difficult that thing is to achieve, and relate that back to them. "Well, replacing one's body parts with magical constructs is really difficult. There are technomancers who can do it, but they are experts in their field. If you want to try to pull that off on your own, you are almost certainly going to lose your arm/eye, and possibly die. You are not a technomancer. But if you want to seek out one of them, that's a good goal to get what you want." Or "Not a chance in hell, but you might get it to hesitate in killing you for a split second by trying, and that might mean your allies can set up an attack." You can also set up degrees of success and failure. "On a nat20 you can seduce the dragon, but then you have to deal with the consequences. If you fail, it will target you more than anyone else." So you let them try to seduce a dragon, and really think about what that means. If they fail, it likely means death, if they succeed, it likely means they now belong to a dragon and will be trapped in its den forever. Dragons are known to be possessive and greedy. It's okay to tell them this is a possible outcome.
So you don't always have to "Yes, and", you can also "No, but". But it's important that there's a dialogue as to what the outcomes you both _want_ are around the particular test/situation.
Before killing them, present tangible consequences. For Murderhobo behavior, limit their options and have the world treat them like the chaotic forces they are. People don't want to deal with them, or hire them (or the people that do are awful and betray them). People don't pay them, they use them. Bounties get put out on their heads. They get arrested and sent on suicide missions to pay back their debt. When it's between them and a dragon, people _side with the dragon!_ If a player says they want to step off a cliff, tell them that they feel a sickening vertigo, and looking down they know a fall from this height could kill them. If they persist _then_ give them the result of that, damage and possible death. Permanent maiming/crippling as _punishment_ is often not much fun and just feels bad, (though just having it be a known consequence you tell them about before hand can be a good time) dying because you were dumb and tried something, is sometimes hilarious and looked back on fondly as a good lesson--I literally had a character do this:
He and his party were trapped on a cliffside, well above a tree line. He said he wanted to jump down to the trees and catch himself on a branch. It was over a hundred foot drop just to the tree tops. I told him it was possible, but he would almost certainly die, very low odds of any success, and he would get hurt even on a success. He said he was going for it. I warned him once again, it was nearly impossible. He said, "But DM, I'm an elf." He jumped, I had him roll, he failed dramatically to grab the trees, hit dozens of branches on the way down, slammed into the ground, and died. He was also carrying various mutagenic potions on him, those exploded and began mutating his flesh. He laughed the hardest of us all. But later he asked if had actually been possible, and I told him if it had not been possible I wouldn't have asked for a roll. I would have just told him it was impossible. There's never a reason not to be clear on something like this with your players, you don't have to *SHOCK* them with consequences. You're the window to the world, so be transparent so they can see it clearly.
The other side of this, aside from thinking of the world as a place where consequences occur, is to straight up talk to your players and ask them what kind of game they are looking for, and *tell them the tone of the game you are running.* Your world might not be boring, but that doesn't mean it's the one they want to play in. Maybe they want a chaotic cartoon power fantasy, and your world is more reasonable than that. So maybe they want a different game. Maybe you don't want to run the game they want to play. That's okay. But it's better just to talk it out than to punish your players. This is a game played for fun among friends, not some kind of test of judgment. Ask what they are after, and decide what you want to run, and see if there's a middle ground. If not, part ways and find people that are into your game style. But punishing your pals is a _very_ select style of hobby, and not one that yields good results without people opting into it.
@@Lurklen This is great. Thank you for taking the time to share.
@@Lurklen I appreciate the long comment and your great explanation of situations and outcomes.
I think we agree largely. I’m not interested being subversive about consequences- I just don’t want to baby my players anymore.
@@FamilyTableTop lol, glad it was appreciated instead of annoying. I can go on, but I try not to say more than I need to to make my point (some points just suffer when given too glibly).
Which is sensible. Just remember there are stages to growing up, we don't go from babies to adults, we grow gradually in between. If you do it gradually, and are clear with your players on the potential consequences of their actions, I think you'll get the results you're looking for.
@@kylewist7745 Glad it was appreciated.
Direct conversation with the players "I'm not enjoying this and I worked hard on it so I would appreciate you respect my game."
Dont be afraid to stop the game and tell them to behave themselves or you are stopping the game now. You are not a punching bag.
Player says I walk off the cliff, say" OK but you WILL die is that what you still want to do? " If they say yes then narrate the terrible way in which they die, no dice rolling.
Don't be afraid to get rid of a toxic player if they won't fly right, they will drag everything down and cause good players to leave the group.
If you end of increasing the stakes of decisions (I think you should). However you should do it slowly over the course of 2-3 sessions so your players don’t complain if it gets a lot more difficult over the course of one week.
edit: they may be doing silly things because they wanna have fun and don’t wanna be too serious
you are losing the point of playing games, it is to have FUN, and if being silly for them is fun, then let them do it, and if not stop playing, easy fix, not the right group to play with, end of, you are too obsessed
Players will always make funny dumb decisions no matter how serious you try to make it. But giving the reasonable response the world would actually make is what makes it fun. We play the game to hang out with friends and escape from life for a bit. We want to do dumb stuff and see what happens. They will have more fun just causing problems and seeing what happens. That being said, I still do not get the point of solo play. The main fun lies in playing with your friends, and they'll come up with a better story than you'll come up with on your own in your head. Play with your friends and embrace the stupidity they come up with.
Dude, your frustration can be felt in this video. Lots of top tier advice already, so I’ll just add - there is a social contract when playing these games. It isn’t you vs them. The players need to respect your game and if they aren’t, a conversation needs to be had with those individuals or the table as a whole about what they want to get out of it. If it doesn’t align with your game, it’s best to stop and do something else. There is no reason for you to be miserable.
Please don't try to address out-of-game problems in the game. It can often seem compelling, like it's how a story should go, but that's a trap. The you as a player inside the game is only a shadow cast from the you as a person outside the game, and is always less powerful and capable than your outside self. Even when you're the DM and inside the game you can snuff out the sun and flick the world away like an unwanted marble, the you outside of the game created the space for the game to exist in the first place.
And your problem is that outside the game your players aren't taking the game seriously.
So tell them what you put in the video, but stick to the "I"s. "I want to play along with y'all when you're having fun, but if I wind up making the world too silly, when I sit down to do prep I have trouble keeping it going. It's a lot easier for me to put together a real place than a bunch of jokes."
And if somebody still cracks a joke, just no-sell it. "Okay, ha ha, but what do you really do?"
If you watch Gamer Geek's primers on solo rpgs, it will make so much more sense.
I got her book, then watched just 1 of her videos she recommended…and even though I've gamed on & off for over 40 years, and used at least 30 RPG systems, she taught me several things that never clicked and made it so I could game with or without dice or a system for the next 40 years.
Hey. You should really try online ttrpg. I play every week with friends. Sometime people miss a session or two, but the game goes on. I am GMing two massive campaigns, and it’s freaking awesome. This way you can team up with likeminded people.
Wow. That is a lot of a lot. I have thoughts. I dont know what your relationships with your other players are, but this could possibly end an acquaintanceship or two if you're not careful (or even if you are careful).
Also, have you tried leaning into the wind and trying a session or two of a GM-less rpg? It will give you a chance to take a break, and it will give them a chance to shoulder some narrative responsibility, rather than just breaking your toys. It's a known fact that folks take better care of things they own and have invested in.
I also have a question: do you think novelists feel like "losers?" If you were to take some time to write a short story, would you feel like a "loser?"
I feel for you. You are very hard on yourself. I hope you consider looking into Stoicism. Being a "loser" isn't so bad.
The players might not take the world seriously, but gravity doesn't care about that. You step off a cliff, you fall. You walk in front of horse carriages, well... consequences. I even asked the players to have a backup character on the ready, because they will face some serious danger and might not survive. There's room for humorous social encounters, but if you mess with people... how would someone react in a real social encounter. Dnd is a world with different possibilities, but people in that world are treating it as very real (because they live in it).
How I play solo dnd without feeling like a loser: in some sense, I regard it as 'playtesting,' or even like playing solitaire. Heck, there are people who like to play chess against themselves. It's kind of like that - it has a precedent in other games and hobbies, as I see it.
That makes total sense… if I were going to learn a new wargame I would do the same thing.
Do you continue to play solo after you become familiar with the system?
Your a parent so you know that if your children do bad things or stupid things there are consequences.
You also know that if there are no consequences, or there are idle threats without follow through, they will continue to do those things.
Same with the game.
Actions have consequences and threats need to be followed through.
You do something bad or stupid, and there is an immediate consequence, or a threat to stop or else.
So if they talk bad to a guard, royalty, or god forbid a dragon, the NPC then looks them dead in the eye and says,"You should apologize or keep your mouth shut from now on, or I will reign a horror upon you the likes you have never seen before".
Now you can point out to them, that there is this, that, and the other thing going on, which will lead them to believe that they can back up the threat.
There are 12 or more guards holding their action with crossbows trained upon you, and at least 24 more that will be here within 5 seconds.
You are within the royal chamber and there are 50 of the best trained fighters in the world (The royal knights of Vanquishing). They have all been bred and trained since birth to fight and protect the crown against hordes of enemies.
This is a dragon, they can easily snap you in two and swallow the pieces before you can twitch a muscle.
Then if they continue? You bring it down upon them.
Inactions also have consequences.
They refuse to help the poor shop keeper with the evil tax collector? The next day they find the shop keeper swinging from their own sign.
They refuse to help the farmer find out what has been taking their livestock? At some point later when they pass by the farm house it is boarded up and they find out the entire family has been ripped apart.
They refuse the kings plea to help find the necromancer that has been operating in the area? After sometime they hear that the region has all been turned to undead, and they are attacking other areas across the landscape while swelling their numbers daily.
Also there are situations where there is no such thing as (Yes, but / no, but / or you can try)
A lot of DM's think because you do not allow a player to try something or deny them from doing something stupid, you are taking away player agency.
You do however have to explain why, and informing them of the consequences is not taking away agency, it is making your players understand that there are limitations and repercussions in certain situations that can not and will not change the end result of those actions.
Also for the sake of time and heart ache, you simply are not willing to waste everyone's time by going through the motions.
No you can't lift the castle, as strong as you are that is impossible. The only outcomes are: 1. You get hurt 2. You damage a minuscule piece of the wall OR 3. You both damage a tiny part of the wall and you hurt yourself.
No you can not try to take on 100 armed enemies while shackled without weapons, it does not matter if you are a powerful monk.
This is bad place and time to try and escape, and if you want to do this the only outcome will be certain death for you and everyone else, so NO I will not allow you to do it, unless everyone agrees and than wants to spend the rest of the game rolling up new characters.
Imo it's less punishment its more FAFO, Stupid games win stupid prizes etc. How would the dragon actually react, how would the villain react. "you're taking away player agency" - nah if my human agency wants me to play in traffic the cars aren't saying "yes and we're all made out of foam"
I'm certain that there's many comments mentioning logical consequence of foolhardy choice...
Here's an idea...if the group (or just a player or two) starts a brawl at the inn/tavern, they'll most likely be apprehended and jailed...have that be for a month...and then have the player(s) roll up a new character...then for fun...it's now 1:1 time for a month...and each player rolls a save vs disease each actual day...prison is filthy...
Just a thought...
While I don't necessarily agree with the Tit-for-Tat death spiral that punishing players for being stupid/doing stupid things can bring, I do think there is something to be said for rewarding poor behaviour. Might be a little to late to introduce [Player Grading].
There is also something to be said for leaning into what interests your payers, to a degree.
...not very helpful I know. 😅
I got her six bro. Try this…Two enchanted stones mysteriously appear in your world. Shaped like giant walnuts, they are filled with eldritch fortitude. When your players begin to misbehave, the stones begin to vibrate…erupting into a randomly generated and possibly even deadly curse upon the offenders! Then you can relax and smile, maybe even take a smoke break. Lol
The stuff your players are trying now that you don't like sounds similar to the stuff they were doing in the shadow dark game that you did like.
@@timothyhanson731 I did like the Zany stuff in Shadowdark because it seemed like my players were having fun - and I think they were having fun (too much fun).
I think the Shadowdark game helped me realize that the game can become “too much fun”, and when it does, players become detached from their characters and the game.
Playing in Dragonbane I have been trying to ground things better - like a motorcycle trying to do 160mph, the front wheel keeps lifting up from the ground…
I’m realizing that there is a balance and that balance is very important.
I’m just not good at being the balance.
@@FamilyTableTop I would suggest instead of just killing them, make them justify their actions. So if they want a mechanical arm, before they cut their arm off, remind them they don't have a mechanical arm to replace their arm with or the knowledge. Then prod them on things like where they plan to learn that skill or get that arm. That way they can still feel free to be creative, but you will teach them to be more grounded in their ideas.
The advice you received is valid, but incomplete. Ideally, the only reason you should be playing solo RPG's is because you want to. I understand some people play them because they can't find a group, or nobody in their group wants to try another system. Personally, I would happily play a solo game to learn and adopt good ideas into my own gaming.
The FIRST thing you should do is talk with your players. Sit down with them and explain your feelings as clearly and concisely as possible. Explain to them what you're looking for from them, and what you want out of the game. Then, you listen to what they have to say.
If what they want out of a RPG is completely different from you, and you're not able to find common ground, then you have to face the possibility they may not be the right players for you. As much as we would love to be able to play RPG's with all of our friends and family, the reality is people are different and want different things, and sometimes those wants are simply not compatible.
One of my best and oldest friends also plays RPG's, and they like to do goofy stuff like tie up a kobold to a stick and wave it around like a flag even though they're playing a lawful good paladin. I like to run more serious games where the players feel the suspense that they could die at any moment. We do not play RPG's together, but neither of us are losing sleep over it.
If you do have common ground, then you should all mutually strive to keep your game inside those boundaries. It is not your job alone to accomplish this. Your players have to respect the bounds and goals too, because you are not their babysitter. All of you have agency and accountability as collaborative storytellers. But sometimes players get carried away, and that is when all those GMing tips come into play. When a player deviates from the boundaries you've all agreed to, you use your infinite GM power of "yes, and..." Yes, they do get to attempt what they wanted, and then either you redirect them back into the fold or let them suffer the consequences.
If your bard player rolls a natural 20 to woo a dragon, the dragon still breathes fire on them, because not even a natural 20 can make the impossible possible.
In this case, the dragon is offended over the fact a lowly humanoid (whom might as well be cattle in relation) believes itself to be worthy to pair with great and mighty dragon.
Hot tip hang up a blanket with a cool design maybe fantasy. Reasonable price easy to do and improves background greatly for you viewers. Also people love sound effects. Lol also cheap.
No, dude, you're not portraying your world like a joke. Players are players. They are there to laugh, eat snacks, drink caffeine and have fun. So, yeah, they're going to make characters named Poopy McButthole from a long line of noble McButthole's from the far away barony of Turdlington. That just is. Sure, you can point out to them that you are trying to build a theme game and ask them to make serious characters but, in the end, players come to game for all manner of reasons, including just being the guy that cracks jokes at all points. In the end, just give them a warning about consequences and then have the consequences occur and let the players do what they will?
@@ToesToJesus how do you run a game with “Poopy Mcbutthole” the third? Is it possible to run a long campaign with that much crazy?
@@FamilyTableTop I reject the character and backstory outright and restate my game theme to the player. If they can't come into line, maybe they don't get to play. If the entire table can't buy into the game theme, cool, someone else can run, and, hey, guess what, my paladin is named Jack Mihoff. Now, all of that said, if the game isn't really based around a theme and the players are telling me that want to have a silly time at the table, no problem, the main villain can be an insane wizard who runs dungeons like a game show? I guess I'm saying, read the table? If everyone is just our for silliness, read into that and have bad guy vampire cowboys using boomerangs as their main weapons?
Honestly, though, I think you should try soloing a game. I mean, youre holding Alone in Deepfall Breach right there in your hands. There is literally no barrier to entry. Why not take it out for a spin?
Think of it like this: if you were the conductor of an orchestra and you took an hour or two out of your day to play the flute for the sole purpose of enjoying the expeience of making music only for yourself, would you feel like a loser? I doubt it. In fact, I would bet that it would make you a better conductor, it might even reconnect you to to he creative core that made you fall in love with music to begin with. There is something deeply beautiful and rewarding about creating something wonderful that exists for your enjoyment alone. As a GM you put so much effort and creativity into your games for the gratification of your players. Give youself permission to turn that light inward from time to time.
IDK if solo gaming is for you. I can tell you that it has deepened both my experience of the hobby I love and my appreciation of my own creativity and respect for my inner life. I believe solo play to be a profoundly meaningful and enjoyable aspect of the hobby. Will you? I dont know, and neither will you unless and until you try.
I think that you’ve hit the nail on the head. The DM is in charge, not the players. The world is your creation, not theirs, and actions should have consequences in line with the lore that you have created. A note of caution: If you punish your players too severely early on, it might lead to your players being disheartened and resentful. They have put time and effort into creating their own characters. Maybe a warning at the start of the session?
@@chronixchaos7081 that’s fair. I will probably easy the changes into the world and setting slowly….
I don't know that "the DM is in charge, not the players" is likely to produce a positive result, either for the game or for real-life friendships.
Storytelling is more of a series of social contracts between all players at the table, including the GM. Session Zero and safety tools exist to navigate those social contracts.
Great video! It’s sad to see the death of a campaign- all of your hard work slowly devolving into stupid jokes and uninterested and distracted players- as a thought, you play video games solo- maybe you want to be at the helm of your own gaming experience? - sounds like a classic case of the DM’s lament- advice: stick a stake through it’s heart- your game is dead. 😵
lol - not …yet. This campaign may still be on life support… 😄
I feel like this is just the reality of TTRPGs. They are everything and nothing all at once, by which I mean literlaly every player expects and wants different things from a TTRPG and no one is wrong about what they want. The difficulty is most people don't want the same things.
A common solution, as I see many suggesting here, is that you deliver appropriate consequences for your world. It's your game world, it's your prep, you get to decide what's appropriate. And that's no worse or better than any other way you might resolve this problem, but if the consequence is unhappy or uninterested players, then is it worth it? There are also comments here suggesting that sometimes the group you have isn't a good fit, but new people isn't ever a solution in my opinion and I don't personally understand how people could just find new strangers to befriend for the sake of a gameplay style. You, like me, seem to be interested specifically in playing with family and friends. That means you are limited to the way in which they want to play the game. If that sounds horrible, don't play. You might just be struggling to reconcile or align your hobbies/interests with family connection, but maybe that's not possible if one or more of you dislike some aspect of the gameplay.
You can't make someone like what you like, but you can certainly try. So I'd suggest having your family and friends play your way and see how it goes. Maybe your realism or reactivity will be compelling and interesting, but it could also be a disappointment. If it's the former, great! If it's the latter, maybe the types of TTRPG experiences your group are looking for arent what you're looking for, in which case you find something new to try or stop agonizing / brooding over how to make things work in such a way thay everyone will be happy.
Solo play is just a dice game. Playing with others, is well, playing with others. 😂 Good luck
AI is very close to taking the burden of Dming because it is a burden no matter how you cut it. Even with amazing perfect players at the table. An most times things are definitely less than perfect.
It sounds like there needs to be a conversation about the tone of the game is all. Your players think they are playing something on the silly side and you are trying to be more serious. It should be pretty clear that those silly things won’t work in your world if you mostly stick to your more serious theme.
They don’t need to be autokilled but Dragonbane is a pretty deadly game, the problem will resolve itself once you guide the tone in the desired direction.
Keep it simple....stupid actions gets stupid prizes. Roll those percentile three times take note high and low rolls from 50. More high or more lows in three rolls. That system can determine almost anything. Reactions, what happens, villain actions, ECT. With the cut off arm thing ok give me a med check then con save fairly high ok you haven't gone into shock if made that now med save if failed give me those death saves. That's before spell crafting into arm rolls etc.
There is definitely no substitute for discipline here. 'Reward dramatic roleplaying and stifle unserious input', is simply good advice. It almost seems so obvious you wouldn't think to do it. But, it's a soft rule you must enforce like it's a hard rule, because 'dumb' grows unsustainably. You need to point out that it's not kosher here. Like a lewd t-shirt at a wedding. Clever funny is good, 'Dumb and Dumber' is not.
If someone answers a dramatic moment with a fart joke, literally ignore them and ask another player. Then reward that new player for their dramatic choice. This will probably cure the 'dumb' real fast. Be dismissive but informative.
If all your players want a dumb zany game and you push consequences on them you will lose your players bc they wont enjoy it. In this case you need to decide if that is the type of world you want to play. A player setting mismatch can kill the game. Now, if one or two players, mainly young to teenage players, are being dumb while everyone else is trying to be serious, give them consequences. Just know they will slowly pull back from them game as they don't enjoy it as much.
If players make stupid decisions annihilate their characters. Then make them restart with new characters from level 1.
OR find better players.
Why do players not take the world seriously? Marvel movies! Even if the main plot is dead seriously there is always so much comic relief that it is easy to take everything as a joke. Players copy that.
Shame on Disney - they ruin everything!
Punishing the players is equally nonsensical as dumbing the world down. Talk with your players, and tell them you are not happy with playing cartoonish adventures, but some players do want that and if you punish them then you might create resentment to the hobby and they will not play either with you. If you do not have the luxury to simple look for a different group, since the players are friends and family, then I would recommend making a deal with them, one campaign for you and then one for them. Like having one serious one in which the players try to take it serious and then one in which they can play cartoonish to their hearts content. But do ot punish players for their preferences, since that will usually lead to nobody want to play with you since you failed to properly communicate with the players about expectations and preferences you have.
I wouldn't call it punishment, but rather the second way you phrased it as "make your world be real." If they do want to jump off a great height, then allow that "real" moment demonstrate the effects of gravity.
"Roleplay solves everything." - Shonner
Roleplay the world, and let it react believably within the genre your going for. Behave and believe you are the character you choose to inhabit when they perform those antics. If players say something out of touch in the setting, then have the NPCs shame them as some crazed insane person. If they anger a dragon then breathe fire. I don't think viewing it as a "Solo RPG" is the way to go, simply use the game mechanics for the dragon in this example. You don't have to instant kill them as "punishment."
There could also be other reasons that I am guessing at here for a longer answer.
1a. This could also be an issue of Expectations not aligning with the actual Experience. Did you have a first session that establishes expectations? Did you decide on setting and genre? What was the desired tone at the table? To what degree is everyone in character (somewhere on the spectrum of party game vs. always in character)?
1b. Was there any co-creation for the world? This is a natural way to make players care more about the world. Will Wright (game designer for Sim City, Spore, The Sims, etc.) mentioned this phenomenon where players start destructive when simply presented with a premade city; the players would test the limits of that city by destroying some of it, and eventually when the dust settled they build up their own city to care for like a garden.
2. This could be an issue of quantity and quality. Are there too many players? If quantity is too much then this can lend to less time for tension to build up. Are you playing too frequently? This could mean players are getting burnt out too fast so they seek a way to change the routine.
3. Maybe there is an issue in motivations. What drives a person to play a TTRPG other than for "fun" or for a "social event?"
These examples are not all encompassing (surely there are more drives than 3!), and while a player can experience multiple drives they should be ranked by preference. So character driven may be a player's primary preference followed by challenge driven and so on:
Challenge driven = desire to achieve and overcome an obstacle in game mechanics or a puzzling situation presented by the GM
Story driven = create an interesting scene latching onto concepts from linear media such as voice accents, character arcs, archetypes, twists, and scene editing mechanics (if the game has them); the story is the desired by-product of play.
Character driven = Behave and believe as a character in another world that pursues their own goals while overcoming conflict; the act of roleplaying in the moment is the goal here especially when the immersive flow state takes over.
4. Fear of roleplaying sincerely. Sometimes there is a reaction of nervous laughter that happens to people in an uncomfortable situation; what you describe could be a similar reaction by injecting a quip to alleviate stress instead trying to be genuinely immersed in the roleplay.
@@timh797 these are really helpful examples- thank you for writing this out. I will try to play attention to our sessions to weigh out what be happening in the world.
I think you are looking at this the wrong way. I hear this advice a lot, "punish your players for not taking the game as serious you do". But I think the REAL problem is that the players don't care about this world. And you '"treating the game as a solo campaign that the players get to be in" is not going to change that.
The real fix, IMO, is to *give players ownership*. Some games let players help build the world. 'Powered by the Apocalypse' games are usually good at this, especially FELLOWSHIP. Also the OSR game BEYOND THE WALL. But you can do this is any game. Ask the players lots of questions about their characters' place in the world. Who do they respect? Who do they hate? Who helped them when they were at their lowest? And then bring those elements and NPCs into the game.
The other thing is, maybe some of these players don't really want to be playing RPGs - I think you've mentioned your kids specifically as "rather playing Fortnight with their friends" or something. So that makes me wonder if maybe they would have more fun doing something else with you. And if you insist on them playing an RPG, you shouldn't be surprised when they get bored and act disruptively. Of course part of being a parent is making your kids do things they rather not do, including socializing with the family.
I like what you are saying. But a commercial advertisement every two minutes makes the video aggravating.
dont know what to think about that. If you are not aligned with your players and punish them for it... well you WILL GM alone.
There is nothing wrong with gonzo stuff, not every game needs to be dead serious... the goal it to have fun.
When players do stupid shit, the world can respond, i am not sure about the boom you dead dumb guy is the most positive way to address the issue.
Dumb, dumb, dumb! There's a computer programming theory: garbage in, garbage out. The game needs needs to grow with the family, brother. The zaniness was is great for the little ones, but make it like life, with consequences. Better leatning in game, than the real world. It's harsh.
I feel sorry for you man. You need a group that fits better.
But in an effort to fix what you have:
"Hey folks, I feel like the group is not taking the game and the world seriously. Going forward if you threaten a shopkeeper, the law will come. If you try marry a dragon? Roll to avoid a firebreath as this dragon doesn't get in relationships with its food.
I played a solo RPG, its called a Chose your own Adventure book. There is no interaction in a Solo RPG, there is only you talking to yourself, making the dice rolls which you can cheat at and who would question it? TTRPG's are a social interactive hobby.
I think the term you wish to use is world building and creation crafting. Even then, just talking to yourself is only giving you feedback from yourself. Outside entities that you trust will still need to be sought out for a better more rounded answer. Which is still social interacting with others.
If the character wants to marry the dragon, then let ‘em roll for it. 1d20. Natural 20…the dragon accepts and they tie the knot. Player gets to roll up a new character. 1 - 19…the dragon takes offense and lights them up like a Christmas Tree.
Honestly, my friend, it sounds like you need a more mature group. If your players aren't willing to respect the effort that you put into providing a fun and entertaining experience for them than you really need to reset with a new group.