What’s The Story, Muthur?
To the point, tabletop gaming
3 More GM Crutches that Hold Your Game Back
Hopefully you’ve tossed away the first 2 big crutches identified in last weeks post, and you’re already starting to reap the rewards of a freer game. Well, now I’ve got 3 more crutches that hold your game back, and you should seriously consider binning these too.
Now then, have we all had a good week? Are we feeling ready for round 2? Good, lets continue.
Hopefully you’ve tossed away the first 2 big crutches identified in last weeks post, and you’re already starting to reap the rewards of a freer game. Well, now I’ve got 3 more crutches that hold your game back, and you should seriously consider binning these too.
3) Artistic, Player Facing, Playable Maps
Yes, yes, they look cool, but outside of sparing use for set piece battles like “boss fights”, they just take the game towards video game territory. You see, the thing with video games is that the best video game is a video game, so stop trying to be a video game and be a TTRPG instead and play to those strengths.
Why do we use them?
Maps look cool, and give a certain wow factor.
They take the pressure off when describing locations - you can just point at the map instead.
Players with minis or tokens are able to pin point their location.
Why are they bad?
If you rely upon them, they limit your encounters to only situations where you have a relevant map handy.
When you’re using them to gradually reveal a location, then the players can’t help but metagame and notice areas that they have not explored - making exploration less about in game experience and more about how much of the map has been revealed.
Players will take the map as gospel and stop using their imagination. If the map doesn’t specifically show a chandelier then the players are much less likely to ask if there is one for them to shoot down on top of the mob of Goblins.
What is the alternative?
Depending on what is more appropriate for the moment, you should use either theatre of the mind, or quickly draw up a rough map on a Chessex grid. If we’re talking about mapping out a dungeon then let the players do that themselves in their notes.
Gridded battle maps are massively over-used in my experience, and they only really have value in two situations: The battle is very tactical and positioning is very important, or you’re filming an actual play and you want to give your audience something to look at.
Theatre of the mind is generally considered old school, but it’s just as applicable today as it ever was for filling the gaps when gridded maps are not suitable. Big monster? TotM. Horror game? TotM. Small scuffle? TotM. The idea here is that with a couple of prompts, the players imagination and questions will create something far cooler than you can describe, and it really isn’t important that everyone is imagining a slightly different thing.
If you struggle to describe environments, start with the areas utility: “It’s a Kitchen” - At that point you don’t need to describe the sink or the fridge, players have already filled in those blanks. You can move on to identifying the key objects in the room that the players might want to engage with like the discolored brick above the stove, and the stinky open casserole pan on the table.
4) Rule Expansion Books
Ho boy, this is a contentious one.
They’re the worst for this by far, so I’ll pick on them - Since 2014 Lizards Ate Your Toast have released a boat load of 5e expansion books (not counting adventure modules) all containing new rules and stats, sold under the guise of enabling your players to do/experience more things.
If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you.
I get it, they’re a business and we want our favourite games to succeed, and for them to succeed then the business needs to sell stuff. Catch 22. Well as far as I’m concerned the onus is on them to produce something that actually has value - like a good module.
Why do we use them?
Marketing hype?
Sunk cost fallacy?
At some base level we believe that teams of TTRPG scientists have sat down meticulously testing all the rules to ensure their perfection, and that if the game does or doesn’t allow for a specific ability then it must be for good reason. Therefore when the new book is released that has rules for blowing your nose, we go wild because our PCs have had blocked sinuses for weeks and this is just what we’ve been waiting for. Picture the scene: “You look down at your tissue, make a DC12 Religion check to determine if you see the face of God”.
Why are they bad?
Rules expansion books are mega expensive, and they don’t hold their value when you’ve decided that you don’t need them anymore.
Because they have to justify their £50 price point, these books pad in pages and pages of unnecessary complication to their rules, which makes the total system less elegant and slower in play.
They create a culture that says you’re only allowed to do the thing if the rules specifically say that you can.
What is the alternative?
If the system is any good then it should have a core rules language that is easy to understand and widely applicable. The 5e game system is actually an example of this - roll a d20, add modifiers and score higher than a DC to do the thing.
As GMs you need to throw off the shackles of looking to rules supplements for rulings for new things, instead you can use the existing rules language to house rule any situation.
If you want to see how other GMs have handled a situation, the web is full of blogs and videos with free content. For example, check out my stuff on inventory management.
5) Pre-Planning Solutions
I used to do this when I started out GMing. It’s part of that same video game mentality that dictates that everything should be balanced. Eugh.
So for example, you’re doing this when you put a chasm between the players and their goal, and also a tree that is partially fallen, that would span the gap if only the players gave it some encouragement.
Why do we use them?
We pre-plan solutions because we’re obsessed with the idea that the game should be “balanced”. Video games have taught us that all problems have one solution that was designed by the developers and we carry this thought process over to TTRPGs as well.
We cling to the hope that if the solutions pan out the way we design, then the game will go the direction we envision. Then there won’t be any difficult moments at the table where we have to think on our feet.
Why are they bad?
By restricting all problems to only those that we can think of a solution to, we’re limiting our own creative expression as a GM.
Your problems tend to lean to all having the same solution.
It makes session planning a lot more like hard work if you have to stop every time you introduce a conflict to verify that it has a solution.
If all problems have to be solved the way you intended, then the players have no agency. That’s a boring experience.
What is the alternative?
Trust your players to find a way, and be prepared to say yes to it.
That’s good GM advice right there - Default to yes, unless there’s a very good internal consistency reason not to.
Whilst we’re at it, throw off the shackles of expecting everything to go the way you designed - no plan survives contact with the enemy, so learn to embrace the chaos of thinking on your feet. Use random tables if you need on the spot inspiration for what the next challenge should be.
conclusion
We got there! I sure hope I didn’t lose any loyal readers with these two frankly quite ranty posts, but sometimes you just gotta vent, ya know? I promise that this is all good advice, and although none of it should be taken as 100% applicable 100% of the time, you should use your judgement and I reckon your games will improve.
Hey, thanks for reading - you’re good people. If you’ve enjoyed reading this, it’d be great if you could share it on your socials, and maybe think about subscribing to the Mailer of Many Things! Either way, catch you later.
