I mean this is kind of serious, but scheduling is the number one game killer. No one can make it, every always has shit going on in their lives. The longest campaign I hosted/was in this year last two sessions before I called it quits. Time zones disparity make things even worse. Any further details would just be depression posting, so I'll stop
The longest campaign I hosted/was in this year last two sessions before I called it quits.
In my experience, you really have to book people in advance, especially early on. I've noticed that if you can get people to meet three weeks in a row - preferably on the same day at the same time - they'll start deliberately keeping that slot open into the future. But if you're only meeting sporadically every couple of weeks on random days, its a lot harder to get a full table. I also find that getting +1 the game table minimum is handy so you don't have to cancel if a single person can't show up. Four players and a DM is usually a good number, since you can get by with three and you've got room to go to five. But I'm in a "Kingmaker" game that has north of 12 players on paper, for which we get anywhere between 3-6 on any given Sunday.
I set up campaign. I had a dozen people interested, only 6 joined the discord, 3 RSVP. Only 2 made it to the second game. I tried to get more, no one was interested. I give up and I lay down on the ground waiting for the sun to explode.
Check out Axe & Sickle Discord. (linked on the sidebar, but here it is again: https://discord.gg/R5dPsZU)
My perennially sick kiddo has kept me out of games for months. But I know the group and they've got at least five or six regulars, plus three rotating DMs, who do at least one game a week. Often three or four. They're all fun to play with. The DMs know how to write a good adventure. And the Westmarches style allows for a lot of flexibility in attendance, so its not too hard to get a full board.
No I've been in there from the start and I can't play dungeons and dragons anymore. All it feels like is 75% of play time is taken up by combat, which is just me scrambling to come up with what to do because the battlefield changed right before my turn or it's just me mindlessly rolling to attack. It's for that reason I don't like large games, I have no interest in being a foot solider in someone else's fun, and I'm not very vocal, especially in large groups of people I'm not familiar with.
Even more is that I cannot give a single shit about Tolkien fantasy anymore, there is nothing you can do in dnd to escape kings, goblins, fighters, elves and alignment based gods. You could make an entirely new setting and players will still pick the default stuff with the default baggage because they are in the core. It doesn't matter if you make how you try to hack it and turn it into something it's not, it will always have that 70s wargame DNA that I detest because wargaming to me just feels like a waste of time, a competition between who rolls better or minimaxed better.
I feel like there thousands of possibilities of stories and adventures, I don't want to waste what little free time I have fighting goblins in the woods for 1d10+4 gold pieces, scaled up to infinity.
global economy should kick back up so people don't have to work 3 jobs at the same time and i can finally get a group back up, jesus christ
Railroading in a way that robs me of the sense that my character can make meaningful decisions.
I've been on both sides of the screen and I understand that some level of railroading is necessary in tabletop. I'll happily meet the GM halfway. Give me an adventure hook and I'll come up with a reason for my character to bite. It's not a real choice since not taking quest hooks means no game, but in terms of the narrative, my character is still deciding to act and helping drive the story.
On the other hand, preemptively going "You must take this quest or you will die/be locked up forever/be subject to magical compulsion forcing you to" makes my character feel like a mere accessory to the story rather than an agent actively driving it.
Note: I make an exception for quests given in this manner when they arise from a player's choices - like if I decide to have my character commit a crime and they're offered a choice between a death sentence and defeating the evil wizard, that's fine. My character is in that situation because of my decision, so that's just actions having consequences.
I think there's a notable distinction between Railroading and Pre-Game Prep Work / Playing a Pre-Written Module.
To some degree, players are at the table to play a particular game. If you're doing Ravenloft and your party decides to just fuck off to somewhere other than Barovia, then you're not really playing the game you said you were going to play. I don't know what players want their DM to do with the rest of the session when they say "We're getting on a magic boat and sailing to the Forgotten Realms instead". Why get angry when the set up for a story is "You're kidnapped and press ganged onto a pirate ship (which you will presumably eventually mutiny against)" if you said you were going to be playing a game of Pirates? Why whine about getting caught in the Death Star's tracker beam when you're literally running Star Wars: A New Hope, the TTRPG?
On the flip side, if the DM says you're at a fork in the road, but has absolutely no plan for what to do if the players take the left lane, that's poor planning. If the Dread Lord makes a threat that players don't take seriously, the DM needs some line between TPK and exposing the Big Bad as toothless. If the DM presents an open-ended puzzle or conflict and the players come up with a solution that doesn't quite seem to work, the DM needs a contingency for failure. Presenting players with options and then getting mad when they don't take the "right" choice is obnoxious. It also tends to fuel player-paralysis, as the players just kinda stop trying to make choices that they know won't matter.
There's always some gray area - a player escalating a conflict beyond what the DM anticipates (say, a Barbarian slugging the merchant for failing to offer reasonable prices, when the merchant is supposed to be giving them a plot-hook), or players getting "creative" in a way that circumvents a bunch of hazards or a major plot point in a way that significantly diminishes what the DM had planned for the day. And the better DMs will know how to roll with those unanticipated twists in a way that keeps the game moving while still being fun. Arguably, its these unexpected twists and impromptu moments of off-the-rails storytelling that make the game so much fun for everyone involved.
But by and large, the game should be about an interplay between storyteller and characters while still "staying on track". Otherwise, why have a DM at all? Just play a board game.
Why get angry when the set up for a story is “You’re kidnapped and press ganged onto a pirate ship (which you will presumably eventually mutiny against)” if you said you were going to be playing a game of Pirates? Why whine about getting caught in the Death Star’s tracker beam when you’re literally running Star Wars: A New Hope, the TTRPG?
Personal experience may be shaping my opinion here, but the campaign that made me think of this was one where like 3 unrelated epic-level villains some form of magical compulsion to force Good-aligned characters to do quests on their behalf. It got to the point where I seriously felt like the best thing my character would do was throw himself off the nearest cliff because he was such a useful asset to the side of Evil.
That does suck, if its just being strong-armed. And, again, you do need some degree of contingency for when the players buck the system. So subverting the will of the villains by doing as-stated-but-not-as-intended executions of jobs could be fun. Dethroning the good king by getting him to implement a parliamentary democracy, rather than by stabbing him in the back. Burning down the orphanage after you've evacuated all the kids, and then moving them into a new luxury town home that you've purchased with your adventuring money. Whatever.
But simply having the GM announce "Your Paladin eats the baby because he has no choice" isn't particularly fun.
Sometimes DMs are just assholes who like to piss in your punch bowl.
If the DM presents an open-ended puzzle or conflict and the players come up with a solution that doesn’t quite seem to work, the DM needs a contingency for failure.
I do enjoy, as a DM, designing a puzzle with multiple different solutions, and then having the players try to 'solve' the puzzle on some completely separate idea that never occurred to me. Usually, if the players have a good idea for a solution, that doesn't directly conflict with important lore or plot, I'll just have it work, even if its not 'the solution'.
Railroading is often described as forcing the party through a story, but the reality is that it's more about robbing players of agency. RPGs are always bounded in some way, but players get to exercise agency within those boundaries, and that's where the gameplay emerges. Sometimes the outcome of a situation is set (Get in the fucking robot, Shinji), but the way they get to that outcome can be extremely enjoyable. Do you go through the window or the front door? Do you fight or sneak? Do you try charm or intimidation? Railroading is when the GM takes those decisions away from the player, which is anti-fun.
Joke names and joke characters. Not just for the obvious, but also: I'm sure it's funny now, but is it going to be funny three sessions from now? Is it going to even be funny after character creation? What happens when someone gets bored with their own joke? I had a player deliberately kill off his own character so he could roll up a new one because it was entirely structured around some one-note joke and he got bored of it. The character didn't even last two full sessions. And yeah, when it's just a stupid name and you stop finding it funny all you have to do is say it's something else, but you might as well have done that from the beginning. It all just ends up being a waste of time
One of my players named his character after a sword in Bleach. He's now been playing the character for over two years so we all just kind of forget about the beginning.
When a DM wants to be smart and subversive by doing something like “oh the monsters were actually the good guys and the humans are evil” but they’re not actually a good storyteller. If you’re gonna diverge from the beaten path of knight punches dragon, saves village you need to actually be able to deliver on these themes and worldbuilding. You can’t just have a twist for the sake of a twist
Story ideas are like revolutionary tribunals: all about the execution.
IMO the most critical thing in delivering on this is foreshadowing. If the players feel like they should have known all along, then it's a good twist, if the players figure it out and switch sides, then it's also a good twist, but if the players get to the very end of a quest and then you suddenly reveal the truth it will feel like you've pulled it out of your ass and the players will be annoyed.
sorry that youre playing a shit system that isnt balanced, maybe try pathfinder 2e made by unionized paizo (the union is led by socialists) which doesnt have this problem at all? 🧐
Isn't Pathfinder really bad about caster supremacy? I always heard that there's no point in trying to play a martial character at higher levels because "cast save-or-die targeting enemy's weakest save" is basically an "I win" button.
pf2e is probably the only system in the genre where martials like fighters are unmistakably strong and perhaps even purposefully slightly overtuned. people complain about spellcasters not being able to solo encounters all the time on the forums lol. but pf2e has extremely tight math and even a spellcaster will be useful but they wont solo the whole encounter like in pf1e, dnd 3.5, or dnd 5e.
in general, the paradigm is:
martials: strong versus single targets, higher leveled enemies, have a little utility
spellcasters: strong versus many targets (3+ enemies hit by a single spell usually to be considered strong) but has a lot of utility. generally doesnt do good damage if you arent hitting enemies with big aoes or layered persistent damage (re: catching a dude on fire, breaking his brain, conjuring a swarm of mosquitoes, and chucking boiling acid on him as quickly as possible). not the best if some super leveled big bad is fighting you solo, thats when you gotta lean into utility and buffing hard
martials have a way better progression on being able to hit things. so if you wanna be a badass that kills a dragon with your fists, pf2e actually makes it viable rather than making you feel like shit in comparison to a spellcaster. martials also are able to do a lot more things than 'i swing my sword'. you can swing your sword, suplex a bitch, and hit them more with increased chances to crit for example
should be noted that im an extreme munchkin and minmaxer and havent found a way to definitively break the system yet despite being obsessed with finding a way to break it. even my most 'OP' builds are well within the math set out by the system and require a lot of teamwork to function. its very well designed
unions get the goods
Pathfinder 1e, 100%. Build to be compatible with 3.5, it has the same 'linear fighter, quadric wizard' stuff, though its base martials are probably a little stronger than 3.5's, though that's not saying much.
Pf2e, in my experience, is the best dnd-like system I've played for caster-vs-martial balance, improving on 5e, where casters and martials were almost balanced in combat, but caster had a bit boost out of combat. In PF2e, all else being equal, a martial will usually be better in combat than a caster. Does mean that 5e players coming into the game will probably have some feelsbad about how 'little' damage their blaster is doing, but IMO casters do way to much damage in 5e for how much other shit they can pull on top of that. Though they make up for it their lower damage by giving good buffs and debuffs, and by dealing more AOE and diverse energy types, to take advantage of the more common damage weaknesses and resistances.
They also, of course, have more out of combat utility, though even there, martials have a big leg up compared to 5e. Rituals can be performed by anyone with the right skills, and some important stuff, like raise dead, are rituals, so anyone with training in religion can do it, magic or no. Similarly, skills are far more powerful. Out of combat, the medicine skill heals people right up (with the right skill feats), making healing magic only useful in combat, or to break curses and stuff.
I also in general really like their 'save or suck' spells. The real suck effects only happen on enemies crit failing their save, which is rolling 10 below the DC, and rarely happens. But there's still good debuffs applied on fail, and small or 1 round only debuffs that get applied on a successful save (similar to 5e's 'half damage on successful save' effects). It makes save-or-suck spells way less binary, as unless the enemy critically succeeds, they'll still get some damage or debuff on them, but also to really just negate an enemy the way 5e's 'hold monster' can, they usually need to roll like a 1.
Wow, I hadn't played Pathfinder since 1e. Had no idea so much had changed.
pf2e is pretty revolutionary for the whole genre. very balanced and very tight math
Yeah, PF2e is closer to a blend of DnD 4e and 5e, mechanically, than PF1e.
idk the biggest abuse is just playing a fighter with true strike or something which means youll crit a lot. thats it
ive played a gunslinger out of playtest and it is basically just ranged fighter. i didnt consider it op, especially when you throw 3-4 monsters at a party a spellcaster will shine more.
i think the math is honestly absurdly tight. sure, gunslinger and fighter will crit 10% more on average, ramped up if you true strike, but there are other things other people can do that are just as useful even without crits
and i havent had issues with the game falling apart at high levels at all. it isnt 5e. maybe you arent scaling encounters right?
one with a player character that was basically entirely unhittable, and the other where the gm had to ramp up well above what we were “supposed” to be fighting because even un-optimised, we were smashing the opposition into the ground in a turn or two
i think your dm just doesnt know how to use the monsters or read the stat blocks or maybe isnt playing rules as written. our paladin with huge shield focus gets hit regularly and has to keep pulling out shields as she gets swarmed by enemies who go for flanks and trips and knockdowns on her. if your dm is playing it like 5e where you walk up and you say 'swing sword' theyre doing it wrong. almost all of our fights we barely get out alive despite knowing the system well and i feel like it adds to the experience. like we're actually nervous to fight so we dont go murderhobo everything and selectively choose our quests.
like on average, a paladin might have 2-4 ac over what your average fighter will have. that shouldnt equate to 'unhittable'. that should equate to 10-20% less hittable
I mean, the other side of the coin is a character who is totally sub-optimized and can't hit the broad side of a barn with a nat-20 / blows through all their resources in the first encounter / doesn't understand any of the mechanics of the game so they just kinda sit there doing nothing.
I tend to find entry level players do better at low-levels of the game, where the mechanics are simpler and there's less room to go ham. But I also find that Dave 2-rounding the Final Boss clears time to do things other than attack rolls and saving throws. When you inject puzzles and social encounters and other story-based events into the game, min-maxing matters less and player cohesion matters more.
I also like to crib from the JRPG trope of "This Isn't Even My Final Form" when I'm at a truly dramatic encounter, as it gives interludes for PC/NPC banter and other non-murder based story interactions.
People who make characters, realize they don't like their character, and go out of their way to get their character killed. I had a player who did that 4 times in the first 5 sessions. And the thing is, there was never any reason for it in-game. Their characters just "snapped" and started behaving in ways that were guaranteed to earn them a death penalty.
If you don't like your character, try to work out something with the DM. Maybe your character's arc is becoming a character you like to play.
Spotlight hoggers, aka main character syndrome. Many people do it at least a little, and its pretty forgivable in small doses. Similarly, crosstalk, when players talk over each other. Which, I get, especially online, when you're excited and want to talk about 'thing', but please please please let the quieter or less social players also say what they want to say. Often some passive sexism to this one too, considering men often are socialized that their opinion is Very Important, and women are socialized to just roll their eyes and let men say their Important Thoughts.
Had a player that was part of the friend group for years, that always had to be involved in everything. Though I've finally cut him out of my life, for more IRL reasons. Which, might be justifiable in some DnD type games, but the group did a lot of WoD, with large groups, and players splitting off into sidegroups. Like, dude, just focus on your character and their faction, don't metagame to be involved in everything.
Worst was in DnD though, before I switched to pathfinder. I try hard to make sure that, in each plot arc I run, each player gets at least one 'spotlight' moment. For this one, tumultuous city of guilds, more-or-less ran by a mask council of priests, wearing masks of their gods. A player was a cleric of Thor, and she, the player, was a little more timid, and as such got talked over a bit. But this was obviously a subplot she was directly involved in, as the council was corrupt, especially the Weasley priest of Thor. She got to do a cool power-up moment, and smite him in the council chambers, then some assassins stuff happened, involving the rest of the players rushing into the now broken council chambers. Except problem player just had to know what was going on in there, and made a bit fuss planning on how to smuggle his raven familiar into the camber with her, to 'make sure everything's okay'. And like, its a pretty minor thing, but when its constant, and involving game time and rules adjudication, so his 'super smart wizard' can keep looped in on every player's stuff, its frustrating, especially since this city has his family in it, and he gets his own important plot stuff in the city!
People who don't know how their own characters work. Similarly, people who are jealous that I know how my own character works and complain why they don't get such cool features.
My dude, I'm playing a fighter. You're playing a paladin. You already have more toys than me!
People not discussing their plan ahead of time with a dm that will take up a ton of time. You want to get new specialized weapons? Cool, let him know so he has the relevant passages ready and we don't have to spend two hours twiddling our thumbs while you hem and haw which spear gun to get.
God I feel that. I had a PC once messaged right before a session with his homebrewed idea for a riot shield crossbow with links to 3.5e wikipages even though we play 5e, expecting me to read all of it and come to a decision in 5 minutes
Spending 10 minutes looking up a rule or item or whatever that nobody expected to need or bothered to prepare. It's very flow breaking to be mid battle and someone goes, "oh I have the magic amulet of such and such from 8 sessions ago, what did that do again? I think it's useful here"
As a DM I always establish that I will make something up that makes sense at the time and for next session we will use the real rule if it's different. I feel this makes players be more conscious of what they can do as sometimes my interpretation of the item is incorrect and less powerful which nobody enjoys.
If someone is opposed to such a thing, I think it's reasonable to expect them to read everything about their character that they want to use. Obviously if it's important or a complicated situation people can look stuff up but I'm not interested in whether I got a +/-2 modifier wrong in the moment.
Luckily I only play with friends so it's never a big deal
Those kind of players don’t tend to last long if their only contribution is “try to knock down the props just to see what happens on set.”
hehehe WOW I'm such a hacker
I DM with a group of friends whom I've know since we were in middle school. We know eachother well so we all have a good idea on what's allowed and everyone respects that the DM while lenient, has final say in what's tolerated. That being said... The party artificer is notorious for messaging me with his crazy ideas and contraptions just 5 minutes before a session, and asking me to make a snap ruling on if it's allowed or not. I have enacted my retribution by afflicting him with wereraven lycanthropy, and over the course of a campaign have slowly transformed him into a bird man
Prison break out scenarios. This is, I admit, completely a preference thing but I just hate them in videogames and ttrpgs. I think it's the sudden reduction of choices and the fact all my character's cool stuff gets taken away.
My latest DM ran one, and I can totally appreciate that he ran it really well. There was a solid reason why we were there, there were clear things we could do to escape, there were interesting NPC's to interact with and ally with and it is about as much fun as I have had with this kind of scenario - especially the end where we instigated a full blown prisoner takeover but I still found it ridiculously frustrating but like I said, totally a matter of personal preference.
That does sound fun! Funnily enough, we did something similarish a few sessions later which was cool. I think the DM realised that the party consisting of my ranger character, a rogue and a dexterity based fighter were very much up for sneaking about.
