"It's what my character would do!"

I rubbed my temples and sit my headset down. I’ve heard this term before in multiple places as a GM and as a player. I have yet to hear it used in a positive light. This time it’s to justify attacking another character in the party, causing the game to enter an almost an hour and a half side path over a misunderstanding. As a GM I should of shot the idea down but this group of players has always been chill with almost solitaire like play, and thus I let it play out. No characters were killed and the matter was resolved but it really made me think back to one of my biggest buttons that can be pressed.

This is something that I blame TTRPG systems that claim to be solid for roleplay on, they often lack systems for inter-party conflict resolution. As a player it is very easy to justify a bit of theft from your fellow adventurer, or maybe a quick haymaker followed by a shield slam. It’s drama and no group of individuals in any setting will journey for years free of confrontation. There has to be a line though where the players about to embark on conflict stop and think… is it worth it? Will this cause an actual argument at the table and ruin someone’s fun? Will this stop the game flow for no gain? I have always tried to encourage any serious in character beefs to be talked about between the parties out of character first, either between sessions or at the table via texts while we play. I think it’s vital to address what a character wants to do to another, and work together on a scene that will result in all parties addressing the tension and providing a fun scene for all involved.

“If I talked to them then they would of been ready for <insert action>!” This is often used when I have suggested in the past to address the issue OOC before acting. It’s a selfish take and I would suggest any GMs in the future who get this sort of an excuse along these lines to let them know in the future, it may result in leaving. Often TTRPG games are a team game and are designed for party cooperation, where loot and life go hand in hand. For someone to remove either from another player out of the blue can lead to either a nasty argument or a game dissolving as others at the table want to avoid the game after the fallout.

People are flawed and as such, characters should and do have personality flaws. Some steal, some have bad tempers, some interrupt the party in key moments all the time. These quirks can lead to enjoyable moments in games but it should be heavily considered during the character planning stages if it’s a fun take for the rest of the table. People are quick to be turned off to a game when a problem player’s character has a funny quirk which means they scream “ice peppers” when things are serious in a tense diplomatic setting. Players can be confused when the party’s fighter turns out to be a thief, or the wizard raises the fallen sorcerer as a skeleton without asking. Do these characters -need- to have some quirk or moral rationality that will guarantee run deep grooves in the party without mentioning them first?

It can be avoided, or at least discussed during character creation.

“It’s what my character would do” is an excuse to get away with actions that others dislike. Never accept it.

Rule Zero and DM's Discretion, does it go too far?

If you’ve been playing TTRPGs for any length of time over about a year you’ve possibly heard “Rule Zero” rolled out in defense of a system and its poor rules. To put it simply, Rule Zero is an unofficial rule in the community that means to snip out rules or change them in a game as you and your table sees fit in order to have the most fun possible. Generally, most versions of D&D encourage you change rules as you see fit, as do most other RPGs. I agree with this rule... to a point.

I have a personal policy that if I am going to pay money for the books of a system, I will use minimum 98% of the rules. For many properties that are mainstream such as D&D, Pathfinder, anything from Fantasy Flight, etc., you are dropping between 25-50 dollars a book. For anything over ten I feel I should be able to use the system as designed. I feel the biggest culprit for this was 3.5, where it seemed like every game followed different levels of rules. It made play tedious and having players join my own sessions only to find I followed most of the rules was a chore. If I need to slim down a system or make sweeping changes, I will look for a system that fits my needs. I want my money to go to people who put time into systems I like to use, and I want my friends at the table to go down the same road with me.

Some systems require some “DM’s Discretion” on how to handle certain rulings. I have no issue with this for certain situations such as enemies attacking players, but I do have a huge issue with it when it comes to anything else. I always felt that if a part of a system required a player to roll a dice to determine the outcome, the system should provide a means to execute the results. If there are no guidelines for the result of the roll, then remove the roll! Some systems have optional rules (5^th Edition, Hackmaster 5e are two good examples) which provide additional rules to substitute a current rule, or to make certain aspects of the game more complicated. I think this is a great way to handle certain systems that often get house ruled in past editions. It’s the developers offering alternatives that may help a current set of rules work for a group better, or add an extra layer of complexity that a group may wish to have.

A personal metric I use when discussing a system in length with someone is how well they know the rules off the top of their head (basics). If I hear that a good portion of the rules are “not worried about” or “well it depends”, then I check out from being interested. I see a lot of systems put on a pedestal, but they come with a laundry list of home changes or rules to ignore to make them “enjoyable or playable”. Pathfinder is the biggest offender in recent memory with many locals I know ignoring a lot of the finer rules and forgetting basic ones and some groups making changes to everything from wealth per level to Base Attack Bonus values per level. Some groups ignore ranged penalties and dual wield penalties. Most groups completely disregard anything involving encumbrance, ammo tracking, spell durations, and anything regarding environmental hazards such as thirst and hunger. What you are left with is a basic d20 system with some classes that have modifications. For many this is 100% fine and I can understand that it’s still a framework to work off of, but there are probably other options out there where you can avoid the need to re-write things to make it work.

I do believe in playing a system that you and your friends enjoy, but if you cut out a chunk of it, please avoid selling its virtues to others as a “great system” when you have a laundry list of changes.

Tracking the passage of time!

When playing D&D and similar systems, often the passing of time is left out of the equation for simplicity sake. When players buff themselves it’s often considered that the buffs will last most of the dungeon, if not the whole thing.

One method I have switched to during areas where the passing of time is important is switching to initiative for asking what people are doing. The party rolls initiative, then until the next combat encounter we go down the list to ask what people are doing. On Roll20 I use a custom Round Counter that raises by 1 every time it comes up on the turn order. In person I use a handheld counter device that I bought for Hackmaster.

Structuring the gameplay in this manner may seem very board gamey, but it gives you an accurate passage of time as often one round is six seconds, so 10 rounds is one in-game minute. It also gives people a chance to roleplay, or get involved if they feel they may be stepping on the toes of their allies, or are shy to butt in. This system allows for ease in triggering and resolving traps as players move on their turn and thus, can accidentally get in front of a rogue who’s on the lookout for such devices.

I use a house rule that every x number of rounds an encounter roll is made. The rate of encounters varies based on the location. In a tomb in the middle of an old mountain pass the rate will be high, 15-20 rounds for a random encounter due to isolation. Places like a castle or a big bads hideout the rate may me 5-10 as more individuals are in the location to intercept the party.

It can slow the game down a bit, and some players can get confused on how to handle when actions happen. It’s best to make clear “when” actions happen, and if people are waiting for others to act first in the round. Delaying actions and readying is all easy to do, as long as no immediate threats are present. When it comes to moving on a per square basis (if you use a map) I usually just let everyone move at the system’s Run speed and still take an action for game flow sake.

A big takeaway from switching to this system is realistically it takes the average party of mine 3-5 minutes to clear a dungeon from start to finish. That can take all game session, but it really breaks down the scope of how time actually passes. It feels like in-game it should take literal hours but the 6 second round helps to make it feel fast and deadly. Another situation I find that my games have gone in when I switched to keeping people constrained to the initiative is people tend to separate from the party. The ability to feel as if they have to act on their own causes groups to form, and the party indeed becomes split, often times over large areas.

Three combats happening at once while the party is spread out over the dungeon.

Of course if you and your players enjoy a more organic turn and burn with no pauses that’s great! I always like to try to use the rules the best I can, and I found this is a good way to keep effects tracked and encounter rate balanced.