Your Table Isn't For Everyone and That's OK

Rambly blog post today about a meta etiquette and ethos I've cultivated in my own play that I want to share. I want to preface this by saying inclusivity can have a lot of meanings, and being a racist insensitive jerk at your table is not what I mean when I say "It's OK for your table to not be for everyone." 

What I mean is that maybe you want to run a somewhat mindless action filled adventure through the badlands (while not thinking too hard about local ecology) and one of your friends doesn't think that sounds fun. That's OK, your table isn't for everyone.

Maybe you want to run an ultra-rules-lite story-heavy court intrigue campaign that'll last at least 10 sessions and one of your friends thinks that sounds boooooring. That's OK, your table isn't for everyone.

Maybe you're running a D&D 5e campaign with so many players (9?!?) that you have to turn any new Players and friends away. That's OK, your table isn't for everyone. [[*1]]

Maybe you want to run something tactically crunchy, but one of your friends just can't get into that. That's OK, your table isn't for everyone.

What I mean is Phoenix Command has damage tables that look this:

And I would never commit to playing a years-long Phoenix Command campaign, and even less so would I be able to commit to running this even once. Does this mean Phoenix Command is bad? No. (In fact there's a evidently a whole website dedicated to it by people who really seem to love it!) Does this mean my friends shouldn't run it because I won't be included or would have a bad time? No.

It's OK. The table that's running a long Phoenix Command campaign isn't for everyone, and it's probably not for me. That's just how things go.

What I mean is something that I'd think is a little self-evident, but recent design trends and even some social norms seem to be losing touch with: Different people will like different things and not everyone needs to be involved in every activity you and your friends do.

The Myth of "Something for Everyone" and "The Good GM"

There are probably games that are built to be as widely accessible as possible and have a little something for everyone. But I'll guarantee those games sacrifice a little something for everyone to find a middle ground. And this compromise is probably worth if your primary objective is to spend more time with a specific group of friends! Running for strangers follows a similar trend of compromise that I won't get into as much here, because I personally would only ever run a one-shot for strangers to feel out the vibes. 

But if your goal is to milk TTRPGs for all they're worth, you should not compromise. I'd caution you to pick the games you play in and the friends you assemble to your table wisely. The way you can do this is pretty simple:

FOR GMS:

• Only run something you want to run, that excites you to be running. And something that feels intuitive to your style and brain. 
• Only run something that's intuitive to you, you're the one who has to explain it all after all. Different GMs will find different systems intuitive, find something comfy for you.
• Make sure to be as crystal clear as possible with players about expectations. What you're running, how you're running, why you're running.
• Make sure the players who are joining are all properly bought-in on the campaign. 
• Don't guilt any of your friends into playing something that may not be for them. You are not entitled to players. 
• Don't mistake player criticism for players not vibing with the setup of the table. If a player feels stifled at the table ask them why. If it's because you're not giving them any agency or another player is annoying them or they need to sit closer etx, that is your responsibility as a GM to solve. If it's because they're frustrated that they can't bend the rules at a rules-heavy table, or because the table doesn't conform enough to realism despite that never being a set expectation, that's not an issue with your GMing. That's an issue with the game you're trying to run and maybe that player isn't a great fit ((but also investigate if maybe you as a GM should have communicated expectations better)). 
• If you can't find players among your friends, consider pitching a different system you'd be equally excited about, reviewing how you run the game and (frankly) expanding your network to include folks who would want to play in the stuff you're looking to GM.

FOR PLAYERS:

• Get to know your play style. It's good to push yourself outside your comfort zone now and then to see what you like, but you'll probably get a solid feel for it sooner than you think.
• Be clear about what you want from a campaign. Your GM is there to facilitate the best game they can so don't hesitate to voice your wants. Your GM may not be looking to run the kind of game you want, but it's better to realize that sooner rather than later.
• Only play something you're excited to play and something you're fully bought into.
• Don't guilt trip your friends into running something they may not want to run. You are not entitled to a GM.
• If you can't find a GM among your friends, consider trying a new playstyle you've never tried, reviewing your play habits and (frankly) expanding your network to include folks who would want to GM the stuff you're looking to play.

Obviously you can (and should) break from this advice as long as you're purposefully breaking out of your comfort zone to try something new. Be sure to also communicate that with everyone else in case things don't go as you'd hoped.

On top of this I want to posit (potentially controversially) that a good GM is not one that everyone on the planet has a good time playing with. A good GM is one that excels at the running the type of games they love the most and likewise who can facilitate a good time for players looking for the same type of game. The only universal "Good at GMing" advice is mostly about the responsibility of listening, implementing feedback, elevating the system, not being a dick and being true to yourself. Past that the "Makes and Breaks" come down to a lot more than just your GMing skill. 

There's certainly the illusion of GMs and Players who are "good" at every and any table. I can tell you from experience it's because those are the GMs and Players who genuinely enjoy a wide variety of play styles. They can shift gears to fit the vibe of the table not out of some kind of "skill" but just from that being one of many things they enjoy. Past that it's just a matter of how civil a GM or Player is willing to be about having a bad time. Which certainly is a good skill to cultivate, but not one that should have to be deployed habitually.

Picking a System / Vibe / Style

Much like how I wouldn't bring beer and party hats to my friend's mother's wake, I wouldn't bring F.A.T.A.L. to a group looking for a light-hearted Kids-on-Bikes adventure. Obviously that example is extreme. Most of the time the challenge revolves around more granular distinctions, like how to delineate the line between a Sci-Fi Action Horror and Sci-Fi Survival Horror. The best advice is also the simplest.

Know thine self + Know thine audience

Be clear about what you're in the mood to run, pick something you're confident will fit, get player feedback on potential options and when in doubt trust your gut. You may have players request a specific system or ask for a specific style of play. Understand that everyone's desires should align, and generally try to pick a system that's explicitly designed for that style of play ((or make your own!))

Verbs (as outlined in my previous post) are a great way to gauge what you and your players want. Are you looking for Verbs like Sturggle or Triumph? Do you want Kill or Negotiate? Or both? Or neither? Do these verbs match the system you're running? What about the kinds of verbs your players favor or are most excited by?

Here's an example of some dos and don'ts from my personal experience: In early September (of 2022) me and my cohort were absolutely high off the fumes of the excellent Anime Programme that is Cyberpunk: Edgerunners. The ways in which it fleshed out its world, told a fast-paced/succicnt story, evoked the terrors and tragedies of capitalism, we ate it up! So as mammals are to do when we get excited, I decided I wanted to run something Cyberpunky (or at least my interpretation of Cyberpunky). Everyone was on board, and we knew the general vibe we wanted. We wanted Edgerunners.

One of the prospective players who had GMed Cyberpunk 2020 extensively recommended it, and a lot of other players were excited to try it as well! I'd never run something straight out of a book before and was happy to push myself out of my comfort zone as long as the other players were as well. We set expectations of trying something new, with the understanding that we may not like it/ it may not go well, but we all wanted to try. I regret not setting the expectation more strongly that it was an experiment more than anything.

However I also regret not further investigating how to get the game that had initially brought us to wanting to play something Cyberpunky in the first place: The Edgerunners game. Edgerunners was fast, it was brutal, it was gnarly. Everything had a layer of grime on the glitz. The biggest thing I wanted to run from Edgerunners was the feeling of just barely scraping by through the capitalist hellhole. Bills past due, corporations whose word was law, titans you would never beat, with the carrot stick of surviving happily dangled far far out of reach. Something well and truly disempowering, where glimmers of hope could be breathed to life in the margins.

However Edgerunners is more than that. It's also action and violence and (arguably) bad-assery. What I hadn't realized is those were the parts that Cyberpunk 2020's play was most built for. I'll do a full review of 2020 eventually, but I've learned it's very much not for me (and also one of my favorite TTRPGs to read... it's complicated). While character generation is incredible, most of the systems are focused on action and being a badass. Your character is more James Bond than Rick Deckard. It's a game where a central verb is Thrive instead of Survive. And that's OK, it's just something that I should have investigated further, and something I should have gotten player feedback on before running.

What I wish 2020 had was a little section called...

"Who Is This Game For?"

Something that's gotten (sort of) better with time is developers' ability to articulate the target audience. The ideal player. The preferred GM. While I think it's a bad idea to develop with everyone in mind, it's equally bad to develop with no one in mind. Typical wisdom dictates that the target audience should probably be you and the folks like you. This way you'll know if you're having fun and what exactly you're looking for. If you're making a TTRPG please please please include this section or some form of it. It is crucial for GMs to properly understand and communicate a game's goals so that the whole table can be on the same page.

Too many TTRPGs trip over broad platitudes trying to explain "What Is An RPG?" without addressing the more important "What Is This RPG?"

Once that's figured out, the developer should hopefully communicate things like the tone, timbre, time-investment and tactical crunch its aiming for. Is this a chips and dip night where we roll dice and make stuff up? Or is this a hardcore war sim with copious amounts of realistic rules that you absolutely must follow to get the proper experience?

Read these sections in the games you might run. They're your greatest tool in curating a table. What are the touchstones? Is this a genre we're all into? Are these the kinds of characters my table wants to play and I want to run for? A really good example of this is from the recent Fabula Ultima where the game has two pages addressing "What Is This Game About?"

The game does a great job of outlining the level of realism ("gamey"), the level of empowerment (high, heroic, great deeds), the level of combat (combat and bosses get highlighted a lot), and the general scope (a larger than life adventure).

Looking to run your ideal Final Fantasy IV inspired game? Fabula Ultima might be right for you! Trying to evoke the endless lowkey farming vibes of Rune Factory, where your character isn't super important or strong and the highlight is more on growing the community rather than fighting an antagonist? You might need to do some tweaking. But you know what? I think Fabula Ultima is stronger for being more focused, and for being clear and upfront with what the game is built for and the game feel its designed to evoke.

As the GM it's your job to convey all the game's goals to your prospective audience (eg your friends) and figure out who's interested! From there you can start "casting" and set clear expectations.

Back to our Cyberpunk example, 2020 has this instead which is... not great?

It's certainly flavorful and communicates a strong vibe (certainly a vibe that's more empowerment oriented than Edgerunners). However its too broad to effectively and quickly articulate what kind of play the game is designed for. Part of that is because 2020's design is somewhat broad (which is a whole different thing), but I honestly think if 2020 would benefit from a simple section like*:

Who Is this Game For?

• Players who want to be badasses. Punks with attitude who are ready to get chromed to kingdom come. Who are ready to singlehandedly mow down a whole team of gangers to prove they're top dog.
• Players who want to run the edge. Constantly chasing the next big score, aiming for fame and glory. Who burn so bright that their memory will never fade away. And if you do run too hot and get smoked? Be ready to roll a new punk and hop back into the fray!
• Players looking to get chromed. The future sucks, but that doesn't mean you have to! Chip your way to the top. New arms, new eyes, new heart. You only get further with better gear, and you only get better gear with more money and less 'ganic parts.
• Players who want pulpy drama. Love triangles? Got 'em. Blood rivals? Can't miss 'em. Long lost ex-coworker who's now the Borg between you and the Araska kid you need to escort? Sure, we'll work that in! Things will get personal. Be ready to kick that drama to 11.
• GMs looking for setting with attitude. The world of Cyberpunk 2020 is an amped up action-packed dystopia, with danger and opportunity around every corner. Players will be a badass in a world of nightmares, so give 'em something good to mess up. Maybe it's a pretty corporate tower or a chromed up cop whose power has gone to his head. 
• GMs looking to run wild NPCs. Get ready to ham it up. Borged out solos, heartless CEOs, psyched-up goons. From go your Players will probably have enemies breathing down their necks. Be ready for them to make more.
• Tables looking for an ongoing pick-up game or a focused years-long campaign. Your punks need time to plan and invest otherwise they'll get fried fast. Being a punk isn't just about cracking skulls, it's about making sure your date still goes well after the fact.

[[*: Don't @ me with "This game came out in 1988 cut it some slack"- It's important to critique media by modern standards and figure out how we might improve it. Especially when technology was not a limitation in this instance.]] 

If it isn't clear by now I actually really dig what Cyberpunk 2020 is! However 2020 is not what I was looking to emulate from Edgerunners. It's not about slumming it, it's not about getting your face kicked into the mud, it's not even really as deadly as you'd think (with the exception of headshots, which are so deadly that they rapidly trivialize combat without tweaks). And getting chromed? Is actually way more forgiving than you'd think unless your character refuses to get therapy. The game's not bad. It's just not what I was looking for, and I wish I'd realized that before running. This is what a good "Who is This For?" section can do.

The more modern Cyberpunk: Red actually *checks PDF* doesn't have anything like this... sigh. It also buries the aforementioned very important vibes sheet that 2020 has on page 28 instead of putting it right in front, which I think speaks to why I haven't really enjoyed Red's "update" as much.

Player Buy-In

OK, so you've got your system, your vibes and you yourself are psyched to run! The next step is making sure that all Players Buy-In. I don't mean that you have to sell or coax Players to your game. I just mean present it earnestly, honestly and clearly. Explain what excites you about it and what you're excited to run in it. If your prospective Player also seems excited, communicate your goals, expectations and make sure everyone gets on the same page ((Speaking of, I was recently made aware of this lovely Same Page Tool done by Chris (@yelson) which might help you out in some capacity. This isn't a session Zero tool, this is a "getting together with friends before any sessions are planned and seeing if this campaign is something that's going to work" tool.

Often part of my Player Buy-In is that my campaigns have strictly set lengths of time (Usually a maximum of 15-20 sessions, but other times as short as 4-5 sessions), which for some is a plus and others a negative. My Players also know that I run games with the intention that some art is supposed to make you uncomfortable ((within reason)) and I'm not there to give the players a Power Fantasy, I'm there to give them tough decisions and even lean into disempowerment. This has largely gone over well, but I can certainly imagine that someone looking for a never-ending sandbox would feel slighted. And that's OK! It's a different type of table and neither play style is wrong, just different. Where problems arise is when you try to force those two mutually exclusive ideas together.

Also understand (as the above sheet emphasizes) that Player Buy-In As is a two way street. Just because a Player wants you as a GM and likes your style, doesn't mean you're going to have a good time running a certain system for them. As the GM you're there to make sure everyone has a good time (yourself included).

As a GM I often do "casting" before a campaign. I try to figure out which players would best fit the tone and systems I'm trying to run. It's not casting in the sense of "Danny you need to play the Solo who has XYZ motivation and does ABC" it's more casting in the sense of "Danny I know you've got the spirit and fire to properly bring something interesting to an Edgerunner, you get priority in joining the limited seats in my 2020 campaign." 

A personal example; There's been a host of pastoral fantasy games I've been wanting to run for years. Ryuutama, Gold Sky Stories, even a system I've personally been working on. Gentle, heartwarming systems, about nature, companionship, serenity and a kind of summery whimsy. Why haven't I run any of these? Frankly I tried once and much though I love all of my friends "Gentle" is not a word I would often use to describe some of them. It ended up devolving into crude boisterous antiques pretty quickly.

Is this the fault of inconsiderate players who aren't adapting to the new play style? Of course not! It's on me for recruiting players into something that they probably wouldn't normally play. Maybe once a certain quadrant of said friends is all available at the same time I'd be interested in running these. But until then I'm plenty happy finding games that the available players and I are all on the same page and excited about.

With Cyberpunk the Player Buy-In was three-fold: 1) We were all excited by Edgerunners. 2) We all wanted to try Cyberpunk (emphasis on try because I set a hard limit of a 6-month trial, which I then shortened to 3-months, then 1 as I got to know the system). 3) Everyone was going to push themselves out of their comfort zone a bit. I was going to run a trad system. One of our power gamers was going to try to stay full organic. A newer player was going to try to play the voice of reason. Etc. I think we all had fun in our respective trials and learned a lot as a result! In that the campaign was a success.

Giving Up Is Underrated

The U.S. has developed a bit of a Quitter-Averse culture, and I'm here to give you permission to call that bullshit. Giving up (and trying something else with your energy) is the most underrated option you have. If you can't find players for a campaign it's OK to give up and save it for later in life when you have a different cast of people available. If you want to GM something but after reading it over and over you can't get it into your head or don't quite vibe with it, you can give up and try another system. If you're running a campaign and you or your players (or both) aren't having a good time it's OK to give up and end things early instead of trying to force things to work. That's exactly what I did for the 2020 campaign, and I'd say things are better now for it.

Similarly leaving someone out has become a kind of social faux-pas and I'm here to tell you that it's OK actually. We all have a limited amount of time, and often limited seats at the games we play. You don't have to make sure all your friends have a seat at all of your games, to the point where they're all overcrowded. You don't need to make sure you play in all your friends' games to the point where you're just doing it to support them. Just be honest and upfront with why. If you were playing Pandemic Legacy and your friend who hates cooperative board games wants to play, it's not unreasonable to remind them how much trouble they caused last time out of their own boredom and that you'd prefer a table where everyone is 100% invested. That person pushing themselves out of their comfort zone is one thing. Them joining something they'll actively dislike just to be included is another. Especially if they're the type who isn't particularly civil about being bored.

After all, your table isn't for everyone and that's OK.

[[*1 : One last little anecdote. One of my friends (and current housemate) runs a huge D&D 5e campaign that runs biweekly. It's become almost a running gag that me and few other GMs are constantly worried for their health because the table seems so stressful to manage, especially with a system that isn't designed to accommodate it. But y'know what? That's OK. Everyone (GM included) at that table has a blast, and that's what matters! They found something that works for them, and while it's not something I would run or play (especially with that many people) it doesn't have to be. Objective value calls shouldn't be made on things like play preference... But also holy shit buddy if you're reading this, I do think it's objectively impressive when you juggle that table.]]