**Come here and talk about anything!**

​

This post will stay stickied for (at least) the week-end. Please enjoy this space where you can talk about anything: your last game, your current project, your patreon, etc. You can even talk about video games, ask for a group, or post a survey or share a new meme you've just found. This is the place for small talk on /r/rpg.

​

The off-topic rules may not apply here, but the other rules still do. This is less the Wild West and more the Mild West. Don't be a jerk.

​

----------

​

This submission is generated automatically each Saturday at 00:00 UTC.

TL;DR: Mastery of rules and an intricate game world will not by themselves make your players enjoy the game; your personality and (essentially) project management skills matter more, but somehow this topic is often ignored in GM advice videos and threads.

I often read GM advice threads and watch GM videos because the topic interests me. However, most GM advice assumes that if the game is good enough, people will show up. In my experience, this is not quite true. Rather, if the social experience is good enough, then people will forgive almost anything else and happily return for more sessions.

I have grown frustrated because much GM advice content rarely discusses what I consider absolutely essential to running successful long-term games: soft skills and project management. I realize these are not very sexy words, but players will not appreciate your mastery of the rules and your clever game ideas if you are not a reliable host/GM, a structured planner, and a clear communicator. Unfortunately, it remains overwhelmingly the GM’s responsibility to keep the game running, despite the fact that players are equally responsible for the atmosphere at the table. In my experience, an asymmetry of responsibility persists, and GMs are in charge of both the content of the game and the social dynamics at the table. Furthermore, it is my impression that many campaigns fail because planning halts, sessions slip and are cancelled at the last minute, and energy drains away from all participants. Players are equally responsible for keeping the game alive and energic with their engagement and enthusiasm, but without a structured and pleasant GM who actually organizes games then things will fall apart.

One of my big arguments here is that pleasantness is the primary trait a GM can possess that will make players return. Is the GM able to make players feel comfortable, seen, and heard? Do players feel safe to fail, safe to be silly, and do they feel liked by the GM? I suspect that this aspect is often not addressed in a lot of GM content because it cannot (easily) be taught, whereas rules, combat encounters, and neat initiative systems can be taught. A great GM will be very conscious of who has not spoken in the last twenty minutes, or who is feeling tension because another player overrode their contribution, etc.

Fundamentally, players will consciously or subconsciously ask themselves whether they feel better after spending a session at your table. If the GM isn’t pleasant, then why would anyone return for more than a few sessions? The single biggest contributing factors to whether players feel comfortable at a table are the GM’s personality, their ability to read the room, and their ability to guide sessions without being domineering. I would encourage people to reflect on great GMs they have met: were they great masters of the rules, or were they essentially just pleasant people who also learned rules?

In terms of the project management skills I mention, I can mostly argue from anecdotal evidence (which is useless but fun). An incredible number of nerds are, in my experience, just terrible at planning and executing sessions. They are ideas people, not making-it-happen people. This makes some sense, since planning can be a frustrating job, but this fact simply underscores why this competence is so important. You need to plan the game to get players to your table, and this means dealing with schedules, calendars, sign-ups, cancellations, etc. Although I frame this part of the GM’s job as slightly negative, being conscientious about planning and following up is one of the best ways for a GM to show that they care very deeply about the game. If players feel that the GM cares and is willing to do this work, then it is likely that they themselves become more invested. This is doubly true if the GM is reliable and only cancels sessions in the rarest of cases.

I realize some of this is anecdotal, but I really just want to encourage us to reflect on soft skills and personal competences. I would love to hear your experiences and opinions on this. I do not want to suggest that rules mastery and prep are useless, or that soft skills are impossible to learn; rather, I want to encourage people to think about what actually makes players return. I suspect many will find that their carefully tested initiative systems and carefully balanced combat encounters are less important than laughter, comfort, and good-natured banter. If GM advice threads and videos really want to help people, then they should address how to make players feel welcome. How to do this depends on the GM’s personality, but it should be part of the discussion even if it is hard to teach these things.

Finally, I want to end by saying that GM’ing is a wonderful thing to try, and I encourage everyone to do it. I realize that I may have made it sound like a lot of labor (emotional and otherwise), but all I am really saying is this: if you are a nice person, then you can probably run a fun game, especially with a little practice. It is incredibly rewarding and fun to be a Game Master.

Now that the game has been out for a while and groups have had a decent amount of time with it at the table there has been an influx of videos with people expressing their views of the system. On my feed it's mainly been negative reviews. Of course it's all personal preferences but it's supposedly very clunk mechanically, its very hard on the DM (more so than other systems), and of course the "initiative" system is highly controversial. I've heard it being describes as "like being in an improv class where you're competing to see who can impress the teacher the most".

If you have played daggereheart what are your opinions of it?

edit: intersting vid here of a guy explaining what he doesn't like about it

https://youtu.be/pXe0QwYs-j8?si=8bGR2WtH0wW6semM

I've recently been running into walls when it comes to running a long-term game. I wonder if anyone can help me put my thoughts in order and reconcile some sentiments that I feel like may be conflicting.

• I do enjoy running games, and creating something that engages and impresses players.

• I don't like using pre-written modules or scenarios, because I like that the individuality of the game I'm playing comes from the people at the table. I've played in games with pre-determined scenarios before and they always felt wooden to me.

• I'm not a professional writer, and even though I'm pretty proud of some of what I've come up with there's no guarantee that it'll be of a level that will consistently engage players.

• When something I've written lands flat or otherwise doesn't engage my players, I get frustrated that the onus is on me to constantly be providing that engagement. I don't feel like players feel responsible for contributing to making a session enjoyable.

• I'm putting in significantly more work than any player at the table to write and prepare and a game that is only being enjoyed by ~four people. I would like players to provide direction for a story or motivations for characters. Even after a good session, the responses are gratitude and appreciation but not engagement and collaboration.

• There's a stark divide between what players can add to the world compared to the GM, especially when approaching a setting that they didn't design themselves, so even when I encourage players to be proactive in worldbuilding or finding character elements I expect it's hard to find a foothold to start with.

• On the rare occasion that I have had the chance to be a player rather than GM, I didn't find it particularly difficult to provide my character with a personal motivation and goals for adventure even in a custom setting that I had little context for.

• I'm not so egotistical that my enjoyment of the game is based on players applauding what I've written. I like to be surprised and engaged too, ideally by players coming up with solutions to scenarios or avenues of adventure that I haven't planned. I lose enthusiasm when players are excited by twists and turns in a campaign but I know each one well in advance.

• Because my games are online using a virtual tabletop, I have a harder time responding to unplanned decisions and impromptu adventures than I might at a table in person. If I don't have enough random maps prepped at any given time I would probably have to ask that the avenue of exploration be put on hold so I can prepare between sessions.

• Whenever I ask for people to discuss between sessions what the party might like to do in upcoming sessions, my players rarely hash out any details among each other. Generally I don't think they think about the game very much between sessions, while I'm more invested in it.

Apologies for the ramble but hopefully these sentiments seem reasonable if occasionally contradictory, and I would very much appreciate some perspective from anyone who might feel similarly. I should say that most of these hold true for a variety of systems, more so for the mechanic/ally focused systems like D&D and Pathfinder where battlemaps and precise math are a valued part of the game, but even collaborative and more heavily improvisational systems like Blades in the Dark or various PbtA games run into some of these problems for me. Some games like Blades or Monster of the Week are advertised as low-prep-high-improv, but I always feel like I want to provide context to encounters and foreshadow any kind of developing narrative (which ideally would be developed through gameplay, but which I will then chew on and facilitate with future encounters) and so I don't feel comfortable letting it all come to the surface at the table.

This sub often has a discussion of what is preferred, class-based or skill-based RPGs. Sometimes it's also just a comment a la "I prefer x-based systems". My big question is, where is the line?

I think there are at least 4 types of implementations of classes with 2 being absolutely clear where they fall.

On one end, we have DnD-esque class systems. You choose your class at the beginning, and that determines your whole progression. You cannot escape your class limitation but you might be able to broaden it through things like multi-classing or archetypes from PF2e etc. There's a good point to say that systems without any form of broadening are separate but I think the defining feature of this category is the extremely rigid class structure and mixing classes doesn't really change that because the progress in either is usually separate (you either get a level in cleric or fighter, you get a feat through archetype or through your class).

The first step away from that is something like warhammer. Your class still dictates your progress, for example in 4e, you can only get talents within your current class. But you can easily switch between different classes and get access to all the progress that you want.

The next step is something like Genesys. Your class determines some discounts, guiding you in a direction, but you can easily train skills and talents from other classes. In Genesys, for example, you have a career, for example smuggler, that has deception as a career skill, that means getting better in perception costs 5new level EXP. But brawl is not part of the smuggler career, meaning that improving your brawl skill costs 5new level + 5 EXP. I forgot how talents work exactly but I think there is no inherent restriction of talents to classes in Genesys.

And lastly, there are games like RuneQuest Roleplaying in Glorantha, where your career gives you some boosts at the start and then you are completely free to develop your character however you like. Similar to the other end, we could move games that start with complete blank characters separately but I think it's fine to bundle them together as the progress after the character creation is way more important imo.

Where do you (and the community as a whole) draw the destinction? And have I forgotten any important steps in-between?

TL;DR

Where do you draw the line between class-based and skill-based RPGs?

1. DnD 5e-esque, PF2e-esque
2. Warhammer Fantasy RPG 4e-esque
3. Genesys-esque
4. RuneQuest - Roleplaying in Glorantha-esque

I’m curious what your favourite World of Darkness campaign was, either as a Storyteller or a player.

What was it about the campaign that made it truly memorable?

Will core set be enough or should I buy rulebook too? Is something missing in core set that rulebook would have? And do core set tells me how to make my own characters because in free quick guide it was briefly explained.

I found a few Panic system games giving me dg/ xfiles/control vibes. Anyone GMed these?

Motherland:

https://oldcopperbackjack.itch.io/motherdelta-greenship

Anomalous Investigations

https://octopusink.itch.io/anomalous-investigations

I'm running games in four slots at a Con, and thought I might try a 1d4 approach: one dungeon, four ways. The same players may sign up to multiple slots, and a slot is 3-4 hours.

Assume heavier systems will use pregens, and lighter systems will have players make characters made at the table.

1) What dungeon would you pick?

2) What four systems would you choose?

3) Why?

Ah well!

In several TV series, we get to see not only the point of view of the protagonists, but of villains as well. Seeing what the antagonists are up to is effective as it helps build tension with the audience. It's a way to show how threatening the villain is, what are the stakes etc.

RPGs are, obviously, improvised stories built by the players, very different than a TV show. But there is a lot of inspiration drawn from TV series, so much so that some RPGs (especially some PbtAs) are explicitly designed with specific series in mind.

GMs, when you run a game, do you include cutscenes to the antagonists? Do you think it helps creating a better story? Or does it ruin immersion for the players?

hey guys, I was wondering if anyone here has any idea what happened to this old RP site? It ran for years before i was involved and years after, but now its no where to be found- name of the site is the title, it never varied from that to my knowledge. It was an open world site with an original story line, mostly created by one woman, but branched on by the whole admin team i believe- I can't remember the whole plotline, but I remember they had "Fated"- people plucked from their worlds and dropped into this one- essentially a built in loophole to transfer characters from other sites/worlds/stories into this one.

Sorry for the janky description, but I'm hoping someone knows where it went, OR if anyone has a suggestion for something similar I'd be interested! I haven't done online RP in years, but I (obviously lol) would like to get back into it :) Thanks in advance!