**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.

Been GMing for a party of 3 regulars and 2 newcomers for a few months now. I know all of them pretty well, but haven't played an actual RPG with 3 of them. It was fine at first, but a few weeks ago it started being a drag for me.

I generally try to act stuff out for the players, i.e. most anyone relevant in the story has a name, a few lines of background and whatever I can pass for a personality. I'm not trying to act like its absurdly high quality, but theres enough to immerse yourself if you want to, because the whole theatrical part of DMing is one of the aspects I like most. But the party just can't take anything seriously for more than 10-15 minutes.

I had a pretty dramatic sidestory going involving a serial killer, who was at large in a town the party frequents. He had killed 2 NPCs the party knew and liked. It was going fine at first, but a random joke towards the latter half of the session turned the murderer into a running gag, and neither him nor the actual murders themselves were taken seriously after that. This has happened half a dozen times for larger scenarios, and happens constantly for smaller ones. I can try as hard as I want to set up something dramatic, creepy or just a little serious, and 15 minutes later its a comedy.

I've gotten used to this to a point, no story you ever write survives first contact, and in a world where my primary goal is that everyone is having a good time this would be fine. But its gotten to a degree where I personally don't enjoy telling the story anymore, because it feels like building a sand castle as impressively as possible, and all your players care about is how forcefully they can kick it the fu*k over.

So I changed course, cut out the dramatic moments, stopped trying to write cool or tragic characters. I just about halved the amount of prep time per session. And since there isn't anything to smother to death anymore, I'm much more relaxed at the table and can more easily participate in just acting stupid. I still prep locations, encounters, quests and all that. But it now operates on a very "Sitcom with a limited budget" type of scale.

And then everyone got kind of mad. I had mentioned the whole comedy-fatigue before, and they had promised they'd try to adjust a bit, but I felt like none of it ever really showed. Now they feel like I'm not trying at all and the setting being boring. After a bit of back and forth I said something to the effect of "This is just me giving you the same amount of energy as the other way around." and that hasn't gone over very well.

I'm mostly asking whether others had similar issues, and if theres some middleground I'm missing. I would normally like to continue the party, but its looking kinda dire.

We probably all know about Horror on the Orient Express (but is it any good?) but what other great adventures feature trains?

I've had a TTRPG group for a while, but it's only recently our schedules managed to match up, and we found a system we really enjoyed. (Vampire 5E, ironically-although I do mean to try 20th in the future.) And we have plans for the future, a Vampire campaign, a Daggerheart One Shot, a Call of Cthulhu campaign in October, and a Cyberpunk Quickstart in September. I want to try every system out there, but have neither the time, money, or players for it.

Still, with me finally breaking out of my inexperienced shell and into getting some more practice under my belt, I've been thinking a lot about all the incorrect and damaging assumptions I had going into playing TTRPGs, and how unlearning them has been steady process that has really helped me improve as a GM and enjoyer of TTRPGs. And I was curious to see if there were some other folks who had damaging assumptions they needed to unlearn before they could do better at playing TTRPGs. To give a few examples of my mistakes early on-

Bad Assumption #1) "The GM is solely responsible for the story-"

Something I learned from reading online, watching a recent video about "bad players" And reading the Daggerheart core rulebook is that, TTRPGs are ultimately collaborative storytelling. In the past I would stress myself out trying to prepare a Critical Role level quality story ("You are not Matt Mercer" is another lesson I needed a reminder of.) And just plan out for every eventuality, panicking when my players went off script in a dramatic way.

That is simply not true. The GM is the rule keeper and narrator, but they aren't the author directing the players place to place. Your players will react in ways that can guide the story, or they'll create their own backstories that bump in with things. You make the fiction together, it isn't just on the GM. Similarly to that-

Bad Assumption #2) "The GM has to have everything written ahead of time."

Boy howdy this was such a mistake for me and I am glad I corrected it. During my Monster of the Week campaign, I panicked and thought I did a bad job when my players accidentally murdered an old man and got chased out of town (even though they were laughing the whole time.) And during my first VtM session, we had a moment where one of my players fumbled and violated the Masquerade...But then I got some great advice from here, about sandboxes and not writing everything out.

So I tried it, my first homebrew campaign was to write out a core mystery via the setup and answer, 4-5 locations and a few major NPCs with a few details...and my players are filling out the details of the world. I'll make up new characters when necessary, and work around my Players giving me background details and backstories to introduce parts of them into the world. It's so far been working fantastically! (we're only two sessions in, but everyone's having a blast with getting their characters fleshed out, and I'm less stressed because i have the major beats ready, but things won't fall apart if my players do something unexpected. Speaking of-

Bad Assumption #3) "Things are only successful if everything goes according to plan."

There was a quote about WOTC's other biggest game recently that came to my mind as I played more TTRPGs. "The joy is in the Gathering." I worried about my players in Vampire having a bad time because I couldn't tell the super serious, grim dark story that I felt was appropriate...But when I sat there, listening to us all crack up at our Malkavian's insane behavior, listening to the banter between our Nosferatu and Brujah, and the cackling outrage at a cartoon I made up called "Emi the Earthworm" as a background detail... It really clicked for me, even if the tone isn't perfectly grim dark, or the story goes off script, or you make a mechanical mistake... none of that is as important as the most important question-

"Is the game fun?"

Once I realized that, GMing felt a lot less stressful, and actually a lot more fun. I'm still trying to memorize the mechanics and tell a consistent story of course. But I ultimately realized we're all just here to have a fun time together, and that the "perfect campaign" is an enemy of the fun. So I'm glad that I've been able to adjust that much.

Bad Assumption #4) "Older systems Are More Obtuse to Learn and Should Be Avoided"

I don't know how I got this into my head, maybe horror stories about how convoluted older pre 3.5 DnD was, and my struggles to learn 4E as a teenager? But for the longest time, I had it in my head that old TTRPGs were made exclusively for people who lived and breathed TTRPGs, and were thus written with a lot of mechanics assumed instead of explained, and more of a focus on mechanics or things I struggled with-like math.

By contrast, I automatically assumed that newer TTRPGs were made in the post Actual Play era/explosion of TTRPG popularity. And as such, that they would be written for a more casual/general audience and thus be easier to learn. This was why I picked up 5E over 20th (Well that and I could find the physical book, and hadn't realized 20th was on Drive Thru.) This is, frankly a nonsensical belief and I really need to one day go back and try an 'older' system before I make those kinds of assumptions.

Finally, Bad Assumption #5) "Trust every review, and only play the most widely praised systems."

I hate that I made this assumption as I know better in other media, video games, books, and shows/films. Reviews are not always to be trusted, especially on forums where negative accentuation is both rewarded and encouraged. But being new to TTRPGs, I was scared of making a mistake with my money and time, so I let myself read every review, especially the negative ones and let them get into my head.

I ended up hearing and repeating takes on books and systems I was interested in, but got negative reviews for "Cyberpunk RED is poorly optimized, Crooked Moon is too bloated, Ryuko's Guide to Youkai Realms should be avoided cause Kickstarter books are risky, Cosmere is just a 5E Hack-etc, etc, etc." I realize I don't have the time, money, or audience to buy and try every system I'm curious in. But I should be more careful about repeating what I hear, especially when I can't play the system itself.

Everyone has a different style of play, and different things they enjoy (I for example dislike a lot of crunchy/math systems and prefer games where we don't need maps, and can focus on telling stories with the players.) So what may be one persons Jam may be another's Kryptonite (Draw Steel looks cool, but on the outside it seems very crunchy/map heavy so would be something I don't enjoy.)

That's not to say reviews have no value, but part of getting into TTRPGs as I've discovered is figuring out what you enjoy about them, and your preferred settings and systems can play a large part in that. Once you know, it's easier to get better at figuring out what you enjoy when you get some more experience under your belt-if that makes sense.

Anyway, those were 5 embarrassing assumptions and mistakes I made and sometimes still struggle with as I get into TTRPGs. Did anyone else have to unlearn some bad preconceptions or behaviors as you worked through the hobby? I'm really curious!

What’s your favorite pre-written campaign in any system?

Apologies if this has been asked and answered in depth a thousand times.

My answer is the Arden Vul megadungeon in OSRIC/AD&D. Don’t even google it if you want to avoid spoilers.

We are 20 sessions deep in this Arden Vul campaign and I love it, but our group does relatively little role-play, and is highly tolerant to complex mapping and constant failure. We played the first 15 sessions using OSE and rarely survived to 2nd level. We switched to OSRIC because it was getting tedious for the DM to convert monsters and items.

This is my GOAT. I love the way the world reflects its history and fits together. Every location you explore tells you more about all the other locations and NPCs.

Our DM might disagree - he says it leaves a bit of empty space he needs to fill in, and thus more prep than he’d prefer. I think it’s the best-designed RPG setting I’ve ever heard of.

I am actually screaming into a pillow because the dm foreshadowed this fucking perfectly we just didn't realize until it was too fucking late.

The god, that we fight for, that some of us are even magically bound to follow the will of?

IS THE MAIN FUCKING VILLIAN, HELL BENT ON CONQUERING THE WORLD AND WE DIDN'T FUCKING NOTICE UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN HELP THEM WITH IT BECAUSE OF OUR OWN FUCKING CHOICES

GOD

FUCKING

DAMNIT

Edit: using the opportunity that this has gained a lot of traction to say. Play legend, really fucking good system.

Edit 2: BOYS, HOPE HAS BEEN REGAINED. WE HAVE A FUCKING CHANCE, I REPEAT WE HAVE A CHANCE

Im just curious of your thoughts on this idea, system agnostically.

To me the only issue is about share or time in the spotlight; but I think a good player/gm could easily keep this reasonable. Afterall, plenty of games already have PCs with pets, or underlings they control or RP as. And of course, the GM plays dozens of characters.

But Im just curious what the general feeling is.

If you think its a bad idea, would you be more or less okay with it if it was 1 char sheet and the "2 characters" part was purely role play, like split personality ala Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

So the long read is that me and my wife are going on a trip, and we wanted to maybe have some game time (either 1 player, 1 gm or 2 players, no gm).

We were thinking Cthulhu confidential (a gumshoe 1-on-1 system that's pretty cool), but it's pretty rules heavy and requires a bunch of character sheets, and a lot of dice and other accessories - not really something you can pull up on the beach.

I'm not looking for things like Microscope, since my wife still wants to play a single character and not something too abstract.

In any case, any game that's easy to pick up (literally and figuratively), and is suitable for short maybe hour long sessions for 2 people. Looking forward to hear it.

We're finishing up Shelterwood Inn tonight and there's a slight chance that my players will get their hands on Claire's containment briefcase. Is this item described somewhere? Pretty sure it's not in the scenario itself. What does it actually contain?

There's an old rpg trick me and my friends use which we call 'making a two headed snake'. The basic idea is you double a foes hp and give it two turns per round of combat. There's often a few other minor rules we apply for it based on the system but it's pretty simple.

Basically it's as if you have two of the same monster on the field challenge rating wise but they're combined into the one body. It's a fun way to make a dynamic foe that I feel like has been around for years.

We call it a two headed snake' because of an article that explained the idea very well done years back used a snake monster as it's example. But I've seen the trick called a dozen things over the years; hell I've seen it used as part of official rules such as fabula ultimas elites!

So I'm curious assuming your table knows of/ uses this truck what is you call it? Is there even a consistent name people use for this?

Edit:AS others have pointed out the two headed snake idea was come https://theangrygm.com/elemental-boogaloo/ in 2015. I had seen the method before then but he did a good job explaining it, codifying it, and spreading the idea. But I had forgotten name of the blog since then (It has been a decade~). Called it Paragon monsters at the time?

I've been reading a lot of stuff from various internet sources about how the modern TTRPG climate is one in which the relationship between the GM and players is heavily one-sided: the GM is required to construct and portray an entire story with curated arcs and compelling characters, essentially writing a book they don't have full control over. Meanwhile, the players simply get to enjoy the hard work of the GM, giving at minimum their characters roleplay, and at most some ways to lean into the story. Now weither you agree with this claim or not is up to you. I personally agree with it but I also see thousands of games like this that everyone still enjoys, and I play and GM games like these, so I completely understand thinking the claim is bogus.

However, that's not why this post exists. I instead am simply inquiring as to if there is any TTRPGs that specifically go against this type of play, where the point isn't a curated story, but rather a journey forged by the autonomy of the players, where the GM simply acts as the arbiter for subjective situations such as social encounters, instead of making hooks for the characters to latch onto and drive a specific plot. Bonus points if the GM could essentially be replaced by an oracle.

What I'm not looking for is journaling systems, systems that are specifically made to be GM-less, or systems so lightweight that the GM doesn't do much because there's not a lot to work with.

Edit: for those saying 'any game works for this, its a GM/Player problem', show me where games like 5e have tools for the GM to use so that they don't have to come up with every single small detail on the spot that the players ask for, so they dont need to curate every combat encounter so the players dont die and dont have too easy a fight. Its not a person problem, its a lack of GM tools, especially ones the players can also interact with. a lot of people are saying OSR and after looking deeper at a lot of the recommendations, yeah I agree I think some OSR is in the future for me, I was just looking at essentially 'bad' ones. But to say any ttrpg can do what i am looking for, i just dont think thats true.

also, this post blew up a LOT more than i thought it would (likely cause of how accidentally controversial it was) and i simply dont have the energy to respond to all 67 (so far) comments, but i did read most of them!

My friends and I hyperfixated about super heroes for several hours and thought it would be fun to run a super hero TTRPG for a bit.

I’ll be the one GMing it and building out the world and villains for our hero’s to battle. However I’m a bit intimidated by the process since it feels different than other fantasy worlds I’ve built.

Adventures also feel like they will take on a very different structure than your typical fantasy story line or dungeon.

I’m not sure where the best place to start is or what sorts of questions to ask myself to get started.