Do the opposite of what the D&D internet says to do
The conventional orthodoxy produces the same problems, inverting that orthodoxy produces the solutions
I just finished a fascinating conversation with John N McGowan about his book: “The Living Campaign: A Guide For Creating & Maintaining Tabletop RPG Campaigns.”
Inspired by the series on Wargaming Campaigns by Jon Mollison, and the revolutionary D&D Blog Series by Jeffro Johnson here, John changed his campaigns in 2021 forever and found that by doing nearly the opposite of what people suggested, the campaign became a “Living Campaign” or a “Perpetual Motion Machine.”
This book is designed for everyone running and playing D&D. A book which proposes flipping the majority of RPG orthodoxy on it's head (tracking time, encumbrance, multiple characters, mechanically simple dungeons, limited preparation, challenge based play, rules as written or the mechanical basis of play). In preparation for this I did a light review of two of the kinds of books in this category (“Return of the Lazy DM” by Sly Flourish and “So you want to be a Gamemaster” by Justin Alexander.) After reading them, I decided they were pretty good and had some novel elements in them.
However, nearly all D&D advice, including by such “experts”, has underneath it some unspoken assumptions about what is wrong with the game and what the goal of the game is, which when followed inevitably produces the challenges that restrict the game.
Conventional Play Orthodoxy
The players come first, and characters are a very close second. (Sly Flourish's return of the Lazy DM suggests the right prep is to visualize the characters in your mind before starting.) Players should play one character and be able to reasonably expect to see a fantastic story unfold with that one character.
The game system does not matter, or at the very list is very far down on the heirarch of concerns
Dungeons are open, conceptual and encounters with monsters, situations always seek to either draw out a satisfying story from the character's perspective OR to create an interesting situation to interact with.
Even if not explicitly stated, the entire telos of advice assumes that the Dungeon Master is responsible for providing entertainment and is responsible for the outcome of the game
Almost all D&D Guides propose little preparation, but put the burden of everything on the Dungeon Master, and thus for many, D&D is extremely high prep (for me it used to be 2 hours for 1 hour of play.)
What are the consequences of this advice?
Dungeon Master burnout
Shorter campaigns
Campaigns where the DM has far greater dominance on the direction of the game
Personal conflict
High level play, little alone domain play, is mostly just to be avoided and the campaign should just “start over.”
This is evidence based, drawn from information gathered by wizards-of-the-coast, the Orr Report and there's mountains of personal experience and evidence of this also. One only needs to simply tour reddit, youtube, facebook etc. for “D&D advice” or the experiences of new people to find this.
The Living Campaign Lays out some fundamentals in opposition to the D&D Conventional Play orthodoxy and gives practical, step-by-step examples of employing them:
A personal Setting, based on elements of the real world
1:1 Timekeeping
Formalized Dungeon Exploration
Player Driven Adventures
Encumbrance
Experience and leveling criteria (players are graded by the DM, characters must see a trainer, gold for xp 1 for 1.
Preparation for Mass Combat
The results of this can be seen in evidence by those that try them. (See at least Winning Secrets and A Tale of Two Sandboxes.)
Games keep running on and on and on. Campaigns never seem to end
They are a breeze to run, since the relationship between Dungeon Master and Player is fundamentally altered
They are not difficult to schedule, since the participants are driving the entire experience and are responsible for completing their game goals
There are fewer personal conflicts and poor players are not attracted at all, since all participants must take on the responsibility of mastering the rules just as well as the Dungeon Master, all participants are just as responsible for the outcome of the game.
Gary Gygax laid all of this out in the “Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Master’s Guide” in 1979, but over time what D&D was has shifted, and perhaps no one actually followed his advice until 2021.
It turns out that Gary was not merely a “antagonistic DM” who proposes antiquated advice, but fundamentally understood what made D&D run and work with large groups of people and ambitious campaigns that go on forever.
Check out John N McGowan ‘s Book “The Living Campaign”, a simple, practical, step-by-step guide for making a living world, D&D campaign.
Check out Jeffro Johnson ‘s “Winning Secrets” which inspired the application of these forgotten concepts:
And check out Jon Mollison’s video series on wargames campaigns which helped to inspire John also.
I do agree with the ‘opposite’ advice to a great extent generally; however, it depends on what you want from your game. My group likes to play shorter adventures/campaigns with 2 hour weekly sessions online using a range of rule systems and settings, so the game needs to be contained. If you want to run an open ended campaign using the same rules week after week, then yes, the ‘opposite’ style of gaming works best.
Also, low prep for the GM and making the players accountable for knowing how the player-facing rules work is fine for ‘orthodox’ games too. I run the game RAW to the best of my ability, but I don’t have time to digest an entire 300 page rulebook, so if the players know more than I do then I’m happy for them to correct me.
"Do the opposite..." is extremely important advice in general.
Our voting methods are anti-democratic so they always result in our executive bodies being populated by the wrong people.
This then results in pretty much all mainstream advice and decision making being the exact opposite of what the majority should do.
Thankfully though there's always a happy few who have enough good sense and overwhelming autism to go against the trend.