Which word do you want everyone to stop using?
Nice try. I saw what happened when Time Magazine asked that question. People were NOT happy with how that went down. I'm keeping my mouth shut.
Latest answers from The Angry DM
It's been months since your last update. Are you still there?
Not really. If you'd like to ask me a question, you can check out my Ask Angry column on my website at http://theangrygm.com/category/ask-angry/ . I don't do Ask.FM anymore.
What is the last thing you forgot?
I don't remember. This is a stupid f$&%ing question.
How do you run your 1st session? Do you have a plan? Do you just throw a bunch of random things at the players in an attempt to figure out what they want? What does a 1st session at Angry's table look like?
The first game of any campaign I run is always the worst game in that campaign. And I don't that for a very important reason. The first game isn't ABOUT me. I mostly need to get out of the way.
See, the players need to figure a lot out. And they need to figure it out quick. They need to figure out how to work together, they need to find their characters and their voices, they need to establish their relationships, they need to figure out mechanically how to use their characters, and so on and so forth. I'm going to have a lot of future sessions to establish the world, set up the stories, and so on and so forth. But I need that party functioning first. So I need to get out of the way. I let the players take their time, chat with each other in character, and if they start having interesting conversations, I don't interrupt that s$&%. I let it go. I basically let the players set the pace.
Obviously, if it is a group of people completely new to RPGs and D&D, I do things completely differently mind you.
Usually, I launch a campaign with a strong hook, even if it is only a short term hook. There's some sort of definite goal right in front of the party. And I keep it straightforward and simple. Maybe even a little cliched. The first session of my campaigns is usually "a journey." The party travels overland to get to the location where the goal will be achieved. That is a good adventure to let them set them the pace with. Meanwhile, I can drop all sorts of encounters in the way. A combat, an encounter with friendly NPCs, an encounter with something to investigate or poke and prod around with, maybe a few bits of foreshadowing, an obstacle that has a bunch of different ways to engage, and so on. That way, I can simultaneously let the party feel out how they will work together and get a sense of which players are interested in what.
So, really, the first session of an Angry Campaign is a herky jerky series of the players awkwardly feeling one another out while they walk from point A to point B while random things happen on the road. And it works REALLY well.
See, the players need to figure a lot out. And they need to figure it out quick. They need to figure out how to work together, they need to find their characters and their voices, they need to establish their relationships, they need to figure out mechanically how to use their characters, and so on and so forth. I'm going to have a lot of future sessions to establish the world, set up the stories, and so on and so forth. But I need that party functioning first. So I need to get out of the way. I let the players take their time, chat with each other in character, and if they start having interesting conversations, I don't interrupt that s$&%. I let it go. I basically let the players set the pace.
Obviously, if it is a group of people completely new to RPGs and D&D, I do things completely differently mind you.
Usually, I launch a campaign with a strong hook, even if it is only a short term hook. There's some sort of definite goal right in front of the party. And I keep it straightforward and simple. Maybe even a little cliched. The first session of my campaigns is usually "a journey." The party travels overland to get to the location where the goal will be achieved. That is a good adventure to let them set them the pace with. Meanwhile, I can drop all sorts of encounters in the way. A combat, an encounter with friendly NPCs, an encounter with something to investigate or poke and prod around with, maybe a few bits of foreshadowing, an obstacle that has a bunch of different ways to engage, and so on. That way, I can simultaneously let the party feel out how they will work together and get a sense of which players are interested in what.
So, really, the first session of an Angry Campaign is a herky jerky series of the players awkwardly feeling one another out while they walk from point A to point B while random things happen on the road. And it works REALLY well.
DTRPG has released a statement in regards to the GG card game (link will be after the question). What are your thoughts about what they have said? https://plus.google.com/105998655056511187373/posts/RjNqnw6yn8q
I'm going to be brief here: I think they have lost a customer. I will no longer purchase products on DTRPG, nor will I share links to products on DTRPG. They can join Evil Hat on the list companies I no longer support. That's my choice.
But, I want to say something else. This isn't about the DTRPGs and Targets of the world. They make their business decisions, I make my purchase decisions. End of f$&%ing story. But I want to talk about the OTHER people in this story.
I want to talk about the hand-wringing whinging assholes who think they have some sort of moral right or imperative to decide what products can and can't be sold where. The idea that, because a product is offensive to them, they have a right to call for it's removal from shelves. This is an evil idea. Those people are my enemy. And henceforth, I am at war with them.
The only thing that should determine whether a product exists and can be sold is whether someone has the willingness and ability to create said product. Except in cases where a product causes a provable, demonstrable, actionable harm to human beings. And OFFENSE is not harm. I mean products that explode and kill people. You have no right not to be offended. That's not a thing you are protected from.
Likewise, we have to have some rules in place for stuff sold to kids. But if it's only being sold to adults, that's off the table.
The existence of a product you find offensive that you are not forced to consume causes you NO HARM WHATSOEVER. If you find the idea that I, a legal adult, might be playing a violent video game or a card game you find offensive or something involving goddamned tenctacle porns or Nazis in the privacy of my home is so galling and reprehensible that you cannot live, the problem is you. Not me. I am only a problem if I actually kill people or rape people or summon tentacle monsters to rape and kill people. And until I do those things, I am guilty of nothing.
And the thing is, if I called for the removal of Mass Effect or Dragon Age Whatever because it had gay options and I found that personally offensive, you would laugh yourself shitless and tell me to fuck off. And you'd be right. People frequently send me those pictures of "what if video game men looked like women" and there's these guys in hypersexualized costumes and poses. And I'm like, cool, if you want, go make that game. Am I supposed to be upset? Hell, I save those pictures. I'm bisexual. Some of them are pretty hot.
So here's the thing. If you demand a product be removed as an option FOR EVERYBODY because you personally find it offensive, you are my enemy. Because someday (in the near future), I'm going to be publishing shit. And I don't want anyone but the market deciding whether or not my product can exist.
If I ever catch you calling for the removal or banning or destruction of a product just because it offends you, I'm at war with you. Done and done. Fuck you. This needs to STOP.
But, I want to say something else. This isn't about the DTRPGs and Targets of the world. They make their business decisions, I make my purchase decisions. End of f$&%ing story. But I want to talk about the OTHER people in this story.
I want to talk about the hand-wringing whinging assholes who think they have some sort of moral right or imperative to decide what products can and can't be sold where. The idea that, because a product is offensive to them, they have a right to call for it's removal from shelves. This is an evil idea. Those people are my enemy. And henceforth, I am at war with them.
The only thing that should determine whether a product exists and can be sold is whether someone has the willingness and ability to create said product. Except in cases where a product causes a provable, demonstrable, actionable harm to human beings. And OFFENSE is not harm. I mean products that explode and kill people. You have no right not to be offended. That's not a thing you are protected from.
Likewise, we have to have some rules in place for stuff sold to kids. But if it's only being sold to adults, that's off the table.
The existence of a product you find offensive that you are not forced to consume causes you NO HARM WHATSOEVER. If you find the idea that I, a legal adult, might be playing a violent video game or a card game you find offensive or something involving goddamned tenctacle porns or Nazis in the privacy of my home is so galling and reprehensible that you cannot live, the problem is you. Not me. I am only a problem if I actually kill people or rape people or summon tentacle monsters to rape and kill people. And until I do those things, I am guilty of nothing.
And the thing is, if I called for the removal of Mass Effect or Dragon Age Whatever because it had gay options and I found that personally offensive, you would laugh yourself shitless and tell me to fuck off. And you'd be right. People frequently send me those pictures of "what if video game men looked like women" and there's these guys in hypersexualized costumes and poses. And I'm like, cool, if you want, go make that game. Am I supposed to be upset? Hell, I save those pictures. I'm bisexual. Some of them are pretty hot.
So here's the thing. If you demand a product be removed as an option FOR EVERYBODY because you personally find it offensive, you are my enemy. Because someday (in the near future), I'm going to be publishing shit. And I don't want anyone but the market deciding whether or not my product can exist.
If I ever catch you calling for the removal or banning or destruction of a product just because it offends you, I'm at war with you. Done and done. Fuck you. This needs to STOP.
A high level unarmoured character, especially a bad guy, taking half a dozen arrows without dying hurts me in the verisimilitude. Have thought that a 5+ roll on damage could give advantage on attacks against the target due to his wounds, but big monsters and armour?
You probably shouldn't be playing D&D. But hey, if you want to start f$&%ing with the system, go to town.
I always felt races in D&D had to little an impact on characters, mechanics-wise, specially at later levels. How would you do races if you were designing a system? Do you think there is a problem with the way D&D handle races?
There's not PROBLEM with the way D&D chooses to handle race and the impact it has on the character. Because that's a choice the game makes. So, whether I agree with it or disagree with, I'm not calling a f$&%ing problem. A problem is when the game intends to do one thing and does another instead. There's no sign of that here. So no. Not a problem. I don't throw around words like "problem" and "broken" casually.
Thing is, you could actually make a case that there's this neat story thing that happens when the impact of race gets overwhelmed by the impact of things like feats, class, build, and so on. It shows that the choices the character makes in life are more important and defining than who that character was born as. And that's kind of a neat thing, I suppose. If that's what you want.
Me, I'm in your camp, though. I would like race to have more of a say. Or for there to be more of a reminder of your race throughout the game. Because race is sort of a complicated beast to begin with. At many games I've been a part of, after a few sessions, it's pretty easy to forget who is playing what race. It gets lost and forgotten pretty quickly and easily unless the player is very skilled at emphasizing it and most players are not. It kind of falls in line with genderbending. Ultimately, unless the player is very good at reminding people of who their character is (and that is a skill that takes practice), most players at the table forget that you are playing anything at all. They just see the character as an extension of you. This is further complicated by the fact that, in the end, people can only think like people. Elves, honestly, for living for thousands of year and having their origins in an unchanging magical otherworld, should have a very alien mindset. Dwarves should too. But we can't do that because our brains are still fundamentally human. Which is why we have to fake.
I honestly would have liked to see the personality trait/inspiration system work more with race than background. Like, maybe each race has a set of trait tables too? And you have to choose a balance of traits from your race OR your background (or make up appropriate ones in line with your race and your background). That would have been kind of neat except the inspiration system kind of sucks anyway. Yeah, I'm not going to stop harping on that.
But yes, I am with you. I would like race to matter more in some sort of mechanical and story way that makes it impossible for you to NOT play your race, even if you are not a skilled actor and role-player and not trying to play it to the hilt. Otherwise, it's just a set of bonuses you choose at character creation and means nothing.
And yes, I know the DM and the story SHOULD also emphasize race if they want to make it important. Don't even start on that s$&%. But I'd like some hardcoded incentives too. I hate that "well, the DM can fix it" bulls$&%.
Thing is, you could actually make a case that there's this neat story thing that happens when the impact of race gets overwhelmed by the impact of things like feats, class, build, and so on. It shows that the choices the character makes in life are more important and defining than who that character was born as. And that's kind of a neat thing, I suppose. If that's what you want.
Me, I'm in your camp, though. I would like race to have more of a say. Or for there to be more of a reminder of your race throughout the game. Because race is sort of a complicated beast to begin with. At many games I've been a part of, after a few sessions, it's pretty easy to forget who is playing what race. It gets lost and forgotten pretty quickly and easily unless the player is very skilled at emphasizing it and most players are not. It kind of falls in line with genderbending. Ultimately, unless the player is very good at reminding people of who their character is (and that is a skill that takes practice), most players at the table forget that you are playing anything at all. They just see the character as an extension of you. This is further complicated by the fact that, in the end, people can only think like people. Elves, honestly, for living for thousands of year and having their origins in an unchanging magical otherworld, should have a very alien mindset. Dwarves should too. But we can't do that because our brains are still fundamentally human. Which is why we have to fake.
I honestly would have liked to see the personality trait/inspiration system work more with race than background. Like, maybe each race has a set of trait tables too? And you have to choose a balance of traits from your race OR your background (or make up appropriate ones in line with your race and your background). That would have been kind of neat except the inspiration system kind of sucks anyway. Yeah, I'm not going to stop harping on that.
But yes, I am with you. I would like race to matter more in some sort of mechanical and story way that makes it impossible for you to NOT play your race, even if you are not a skilled actor and role-player and not trying to play it to the hilt. Otherwise, it's just a set of bonuses you choose at character creation and means nothing.
And yes, I know the DM and the story SHOULD also emphasize race if they want to make it important. Don't even start on that s$&%. But I'd like some hardcoded incentives too. I hate that "well, the DM can fix it" bulls$&%.
Clerics in 5E have a lot of domain choices. Have you given any thought to homebrewing a Pancake domain?
What the motherloving f$&% is wrong with you?!
How do you deal with a crappy DM? He is attempting to run a "5e campaign" but really only used it to dictate our char. creation and has mostly thrown its mechanics to the wind. Also, each time we come up with character motives/backstory, he eliminates that storyline someway to continue his plan.
You leave. Holy f$&%, how many times do I have to answer the same questions. Talk it out or walk it out. That's it. That's all you can do. Hey, can you run a game? Maybe try that.
I don't mean to trivialize things, but that's really all you can do. You tell the person you aren't having any fun and tell them why. Maybe you will get lucky and they will listen. But likely they won't. Because if they were that aware of the happiness of people around them, they wouldn't run games that make people unhappy. Or maybe he thinks that's the way to run games. I don't know. But you can't make someone receptive if they are not receptive. So, if a rational, reasonable, polite conversation doesn't work it out, decide whether you can stick it out or not.
But, look, if you try to talk it out, always give the benefit of the doubt. Remember, DMs put a lot of effort and a lot of themselves into their games and you have to be sensitive to that. The DM might not realize the game is not fun or he might not understand what he's doing wrong. And if you don't approach it with sensitivity, the DM is probably going to get receptive. The game is a very personal thing to a DM and perceived judgment can be devastating. So, be cool, be calm, and be polite. Do not have a bitch session, do not make the DM feel attacked. Or else nothing is definitely going to change.
I don't mean to trivialize things, but that's really all you can do. You tell the person you aren't having any fun and tell them why. Maybe you will get lucky and they will listen. But likely they won't. Because if they were that aware of the happiness of people around them, they wouldn't run games that make people unhappy. Or maybe he thinks that's the way to run games. I don't know. But you can't make someone receptive if they are not receptive. So, if a rational, reasonable, polite conversation doesn't work it out, decide whether you can stick it out or not.
But, look, if you try to talk it out, always give the benefit of the doubt. Remember, DMs put a lot of effort and a lot of themselves into their games and you have to be sensitive to that. The DM might not realize the game is not fun or he might not understand what he's doing wrong. And if you don't approach it with sensitivity, the DM is probably going to get receptive. The game is a very personal thing to a DM and perceived judgment can be devastating. So, be cool, be calm, and be polite. Do not have a bitch session, do not make the DM feel attacked. Or else nothing is definitely going to change.
3.5, Pathfinder and 5E have the reputation of being unbalanced beetween casters and non-caster classes. What do you do in your games to make the classes more balanced and the players feel like they can contribute equally to the challenges you present?
Nothing. Seriously. This is one of those things that people just keep pissing and moaning about. It's gotten blown out of all proportion. This whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. I ran 3.5 for eight years, I've run Pathfinder for four years, I've been running D&D 5E officially for three months. And I deal with it by not noticing it or caring.
Look, here's the thing, if you boil every challenge down to a standard, simple combat and never ever challenge the players in any other way, yeah, you're probably going to notice a mechanical mismatch. But it really doesn't take over until higher levels and most people don't play at very high levels. You'll find someone out there who will insist their game was absolutely ruined because they played a fighter and "all they could do was hit things," but ultimately, if the whole game is about hitting things, then, yeah, all anyone can do is hit things. And wizards have lots of different ways to hit things.
So? How do you deal with it? By running good games. Even a dungeon crawl should be a mix of different encounter types and even your combats should be varied and emphasize different things. And there should be choices and rewards for clever thinking. My game isn't about mechanically reducing the hit points of things to zero, even though I do run an action heavy game. That's how I deal with it.
But seriously: stop f$&%ing worrying about it. As Nishki said in that TV show Serenity, "but now I am not just reputation, something about solid, something something gossip." Don't sweat the f$&%ing reputation.
Look, here's the thing, if you boil every challenge down to a standard, simple combat and never ever challenge the players in any other way, yeah, you're probably going to notice a mechanical mismatch. But it really doesn't take over until higher levels and most people don't play at very high levels. You'll find someone out there who will insist their game was absolutely ruined because they played a fighter and "all they could do was hit things," but ultimately, if the whole game is about hitting things, then, yeah, all anyone can do is hit things. And wizards have lots of different ways to hit things.
So? How do you deal with it? By running good games. Even a dungeon crawl should be a mix of different encounter types and even your combats should be varied and emphasize different things. And there should be choices and rewards for clever thinking. My game isn't about mechanically reducing the hit points of things to zero, even though I do run an action heavy game. That's how I deal with it.
But seriously: stop f$&%ing worrying about it. As Nishki said in that TV show Serenity, "but now I am not just reputation, something about solid, something something gossip." Don't sweat the f$&%ing reputation.
Should guys wear a beard and what kind?
No. Facial hair is terrible.