GM Opinions

[Peacemonger]

GM Opinions

This is a place for me to put down my thoughts on a number of topics related to roleplaying, play-by-post, D&D, etc. This is not required reading, and don't expect people to go over every post. On the flip side, I prefer to be an open book so don't see any reason to hide any of the below either.

 

Page 1

---

Table of Contents

Round 1

• Alignment
• Character Backstory
• Charisma & The Party Face
• Classes & Character Build
• Color Dialogue and Thoughts
• Communication
• Concluding a Game
• Control & Power
• D&D 5e System
• Death
• Defeat
• Evil Characters
• Fourth Wall
• Humor

Page 2

---

• NPCs
• Play-by-Post
• Pre-Game IC Threads
• PvP
• Recruitment & Character Selection
• Romance
• Self-Insert
• Social Contracts
• Story Engagement
• Third Party Material
• Toxic Masculinity
• Triggers
• Visuals

Round 2 

• Banning Options
• Brevity & Details 

Page 3

---

• Debates & Arguments
• "Exotic" Character Options 
• Expectation Setting 
• Flaws, Mistakes, and Being Wrong
• High Level Games 
• Making a Great Character
• Metagaming 
• Personality, Ideals, Bonds, Flaws (5e) 
• Players vs. GMs
• Political Correctness (in RPG games) 
• "Problem" Players 
• Reinterpreting Classes and Mechanics
• Quality vs. Quantity
• Time Management
• Wizards of the Coast & Alternatives 

Page 4

---

• Worldbuilding & Genre 

Round 3 - Advanced

• How to Charisma
• Steps to Chill
• Ways to Fail with Fun
• Tackling Hard Topics
• The Path to Improvement
• The Art of Saying No
• Nuance, Nuance, Nuance
• Discussion about Power Trips
• Understanding our Style
• Trust Fall

Round 4 - Niche Topics

• Additional Rules: Strongholds, Large Battles, Relationships, Etc.
• Adventure Paths/Modules
• Anime in DnD
• Character Types I Dislike (But are Perfectly Valid)

Page 5

---

• D&D Classes: What I Love and Not
• Enemies Too Strong & Too Weak
• Equipment: Ammo, Encumbrance, Food, and Others
• Faith, Gods, Pantheons, Religions
• Favorite Monsters
• Ghosting
• Half-Lineages
• Nature of Magic
• Navigating a Pre-Game IC
• Negotiating in the OOC
• Plot Armor
• Railroading
• Real Life Hardships
• Six Second Turns
• Skill Checks

Page 6

---

• Time Skips

Round 5 - Characters and Requests

Highlights

• Care - Chosen One
• Competence - Prodigy
• Conflict - Goth and Criminal
• Freedom - Outlander
• Goals - Heretic & Rocker
• Suspense - Assassin and Inquisitor

Flops

• Backseat GM
• Cringe Edgelords
• Flame War
• Freezing Up
• Headache
• Off-the-Rails

Requests

• Long Game - How Players can Help
• Portraits

Page 7

---

• Prologues
• (My) Recruitments

Round 6 - Deeper Reflections (In Progress)

• Advanced PC Topic - Body (Mechanics)
• Advanced PC Topic - Heart (Stakes)
• Advanced PC Topic - Mind (Plot)
• Advanced PC Topic - Spirit (Community)
• Communication 2.0
• Dungeons
• Fiction and Reality
• "Game" Half of RPGs - Part I (Just Play a Game)
• "Game" Half of RPGs - Part II (And Also Play a Game)
• Hard Approach
• Imposter Syndrome and Comparisons
• Improving and Asking the Right Questions
• Incremental Changes - Pre-Game ICs (Again)

Page 8

---

• Joint Prologues
• Leadership
• Ludonarrative
• Pacing
• Paths to Resolution
• Recruiting the Player
• Support and Empathy

Edited April 16 by Peacemonger (see edit history)

[Peacemonger]

Round 1

Alignment

Alignment works in traditional fantasy where good and evil, where right and wrong are clearly laid out and not something we need to question much if at all. Once we get into moral greys and ethical nuances... the typical 3x3 table doesn't offer a very sturdy foundation. I don't consider myself an expert in ethics, but have taken enough trainings and classes to know that there's a reason why the good - evil/law - chaos approach isn't used seriously in the real world. 

And I think that's my hot take on alignment. It's fine when applied to a tyrannical undead lich, or to a goodly town of Halflings, but once we try to start getting clever, deep, and philosophical, it doesn't work so well because it's not a clever, deep, or philosophical system. That's all right, it doesn't have to be. I do think though that as the game has evolved, as the "typical" game is now less straightforward than kill monsters and find treasure, it's become less and less relevant. Personally, I use it as a loose guideline, and honestly use it to identify potential problems rather than identify fun opportunities. I've never said, "Ooh, a Lawful Good character, that gives me some ideas..." Instead I say, "All right, lawful good. How can we make sure this character works well with the party if the others don't live up to as high a standard..."

What I do love a lot are things like Paladin Oaths and the relationship between a Warlock and their patron. I feel what separates these from alignment is that they are personal paths to follow, a choice that the character made and must contend with the benefits and consequences of it. I feel that usually discussions around a character's specific journey are more productive and relevant to the game than alignment. The other thing I like is that there's the acceptance that a Paladin or Cleric CAN stray from their path and it can add to the story, a Warlock can struggle against their Patron's whims and it feels natural. The GM changing a character's alignment feels more punitive and less story driven.

I love throwing in moral grey situations, like NPCs who challenge the PCs' beliefs and perceptions. It's meant to draw a reaction out of PCs, to have them reflect and engage with a world with different views and opinions. I don't need alignment to do that, and if anything alignment can get in the way when it's not about being correct, but instead about making interesting choices and playing them out.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Peacemonger (see edit history)

[Peacemonger]

Character Backstory

A character's backstory generally serves two purposes for the game itself. For one, it offers plot hooks to incorporate into the story, clear NPCs, places, events, etc. that can motivate the PCs. Second, it can help guide players in roleplaying, leaning on the backstory to help influence how their characters react to things in game. In part because of this I've become a big fan of the "Knives" approach to backstories found HERE. In sum, rather than make traditional stories with several paragraphs, stick to 7-12 key points. From this, a PC will have 7-12 potential plot hooks and 7-12 things to reference when handling situation in-game. 

The other main reason I don't usually go for traditional backstories is I found that this is where I discovered the most problems with character applications. Background details that didn't fit the setting, characters who'd already had their story arc with a beginning-middle-end that left little room for more growth, awkward details that stood out in a bad way, the list goes on. Over time I've asked for shorter and shorter backstories because otherwise, at least in my games, it feels like setting up a trap for applicants to fail as opposed to an opportunity to shine (it's the Personality and Description sections where I personally see characters shine). 

An example. "My character's family was attacked by their own kingdom due to political infighting, and my character doesn't know who in their family escaped." Very broad and general, and yet so many directions this can go. The kingdom can be the same as another PC's home. Maybe they can find a family member imprisoned, or find their grave, or discover them as part of a resistance, or left it all behind to live a simple life under a new name? Maybe their family was in the wrong? Another example. "My character's family is the [insert name] of the [insert name] kingdom. Below is the hierarchy of the kingdom, the power dynamics, and here's a detailed accounting for why the family was attacked and who's left..." This leaves a lot less wiggle room and a good chance that some or most of it won't make it into the game. 

This all being said, I get it. Writing a backstory is fun. We're here to roleplay, and the backstory is a perfect chance to do that. For this reason I also don't outright ban someone wanting to write a backstory above and beyond the "Knives", I only set the expectation that it's the Knives that will weigh much, much more into selecting characters and that'll be referenced in the game. Some GMs love to see an elaborate backstory and swear by it, and that's perfectly valid. For me, the backstory is less about who the character's love interest was and more about who said love interest can be in the game, less about what monsters the character's already fought and more about what monsters can be included that will make a fight more interesting in the game.

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Peacemonger (see edit history)

[Peacemonger]

Charisma and the Party Face

D&D and other roleplaying games are social in nature. Whether you lean towards the "role" or "roll" of it, we're still playing a collaborative storytelling game together. The one attribute that then becomes a bit curious is Charisma as the other five (especially the three physical attributes) are easier to play either as very low, very high, or somewhere in the middle without too much worry over the game. Charisma takes a little extra care as though having low Charisma is perfectly good, there's still the need to have a character that functions in the story enough socially to be fun. One shortcut I've discovered is to lean into the lack of social graces with antagonists as opposed to allies and friendly PCs, though that's only one approach. On the flip side, having a high Charisma, though can roll well, doesn't erase the need to work well socially with others as getting a roll of 25 on a Persuasion check won't mean the actual GM and players around the table will be onboard. One shortcut I've found to high Charisma is working on lifting others up rather than take the spotlight, but once again, just one option among many. Another approach is to lean on other aspects of Charisma such as good looks, impeccable style, musical genius as opposed to expecting others to always agree.

This is what leads to my dislike of the "party face". Now, having the character high in Persuasion or Deception be the one to try to influence the guards to get inside the castle is all good. Having one character as the person who takes front and center in almost every social exchange is usually less fun for everyone else. I think the idea of a party face works better for a dungeon crawl or other combat/challenge-heavy game as having a dialogue becomes akin to a Rogue searching for traps. In any game that's heavier on the social engagements, the party face no longer works as a good team player as everyone should be taking part. This is all the more true in play-by-post games that run slower, and a conversation might mean a week or two of everyone else sitting around.

And for me the other important thing to remember is that just like a high Strength character can still fail to lift the big rock, or the intelligent character can fall short of solving a riddle, so too can a charismatic character fumble socially. It does not diminish the character, only makes success all the sweeter and shows how in a world of magic and monsters, one also needs to say the right words at the right time too. D&D and other games are a chance for us to stretch out and test things, and see what does and doesn't work. It is not a guarantee that we can say and do as we please without being challenged or disagreed with. 

Edited March 29, 2023 by Peacemonger (see edit history)

[Peacemonger]

Classes and Character Build

D&D is designed for a team to work together. Each class is meant to have strengths and weaknesses that complement each other. Although there's always room for improvement, I feel that 5e does a good enough job of it. One thing I don't think is as important is balance, which I don't think the game has ever been. What I think matters more is that all of the players feel their character is doing their part, and that they're getting out of the character what they want. It's less about raw power, and more on the power that each player wants. As an example, as I write this I've started a game with a Hill Dwarf Barbarian with the Tough feat. The power I hope for in this character is to be a tank, to be able to take monsters' primary attacks head on and to survive, and I can enjoy my scarred, reckless Dwarf getting more scars. This is different than wanting the Great Weapon Master feat and dealing a large amount of damage. It's different than being a Rogue who can infiltrate an enemy camp solo. It's different than anything with magic. 

Like much of the game, it boils down to communication and expectation setting. There's no one right answer, but a matter of it everyone's on board with the plan. For example, if a game is meant to be a low level game likely not getting past level 4, that's okay unless the Wizard really wanted Fireball. Having no magic items is okay unless there's a Fighter who wants to be able to fight ghosts. Talks of if something is "too powerful" or not I feel misses the point. It's whether the power matches what will help the player enjoy the game and have their vision of their character realized, and if it matches what the GM sees as working within their world. PCs can be granted boons and curses, monsters can be made more or less powerful than what's written. Just look at popular media. There are successful stories about characters who can blow up worlds, and great stories about normal people with no gifts at all. What matters is that the obstacles, the challenges fit the protagonists. 

Over the years I've become more and more lenient. As I've grown comfortable GMing, I'm not really concerned if a combat encounter gets steamrolled. If someone wants some small exception to the rules as written, I'd rather give the player what they want than uphold some sort of "code" of the game. I see in lots of discussions whether or not something is broken, people use the most extreme examples like what if a character is Level 20, or has some other magic item to combo with it, etc. This brings us back full circle on what we actually expect in game, how high of a level are going, what else exists in the world, what are the challenges ahead (and how can they be tweaked)? 

My best advice to players on building a character is to find a way to get the core of what you want from the character early on. If you're waiting 10 levels to get to what you're looking for, that's a long time that may not ever come. Instead, figure out what you can do in earlier levels to get the spirit of what you're looking for. This is easier with some classes and builds than others, but is equally important whatever you want to play. 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Peacemonger (see edit history)

[Peacemonger]

Color Dialogue and Thoughts

It's become pretty standard in many PbP games for dialogue to be color and bolded and thoughts to be color and italicized. My take on it is it is used to help highlight the thoughts and words of PCs to make it easier to reference when replying. The issue I take with it is that just as it helps certain parts of a post stand out, it overshadows the descriptive part of a post. If I want to write about a character's facial expression turning grim, their blood boiling, the slight shake in their arms... that may be more key to the moment than them saying, "Fine" or thinking, This is wrong. For a game designed for in-person play more than play-by-post, one of the few advantages to writing the game via text is the opportunity to more easily narrate non-verbal details that people can go back and refer to. 

I go along with for games that use it. I don't feel so strongly as to refuse to do color dialogue (plus there wouldn't be that many games to play in). However, I opt not to use it for games I DM. I've heard the complaint that it's "harder to read", which I'm not convinced of. I think it's harder to pick out the dialogue to respond directly. Otherwise, if it really is a pain, why does almost everything else use standard black font from books, to documents, to fillable forms, to websites?    

Edited March 29, 2023 by Peacemonger (see edit history)

[Peacemonger]

Communication

Roleplaying games are all about communication. Communication is also very hard, which is counterintuitive since all of us do it everyday. Despite this, we have misunderstandings all the time with the people we live and work with, people we've known for years. Professional marketers and negotiators don't always get it right. I believe misunderstandings in games are therefore inevitable, and better to have a plan to deal with it rather than avoid it at all costs. A few tricks I've learned over time:

• Explain "why": We've usually worked out in our own heads why our character is making the choices they are. Chances are everyone else is only reading what's on the post first. Not every small detail requires an explanation, but anything we think could be taken the wrong way probably should have a bit of the "why" thrown in.
• Be curious: Communication is easier when we start with a curious mindset as opposed to a set mindset. Whether it's writing in a way that's curious to whether our character has succeeded or not (assuming the roll's not super low or super high), or curious to learn more about what the other players are thinking makes communication easier than decided upfront what will happen in game, or just "knowing" what others are doing.
• Be humble: Part of the fun of roleplaying games is the chance to put ourselves in the shoes of someone more powerful than us and live vicariously through them. We can still do this from a humble place knowing that the best laid plans don't always work out, and to roll with it when things don't happen the way we thought they would.

The other thing I'll note about communication is that communication extends beyond what we say directly, and also covers tone, implications, end results, even what's not being said, etc. Sometimes this is unconscious. When we're frustrated, or have had a bad day, or maybe there's a particular player or PC you're not as keen on, there's a good chance all of that will find subtle ways of entering your posts and others will likely catch on it. One beautiful thing about play-by-post is we can take a few moments to chill, think about the messages we want to convey, and then post. 

Edited March 29, 2023 by Peacemonger (see edit history)

[Peacemonger]

Concluding a Game

Very, very few games go from 1st to 20th level, and can take years for even dedicated, in-person games. As such, at some point a game will need to conclude. My first rule of thumb is to not "ghost", or disappear without telling anyone. Unfortunately this is common. I don't see any bad intent from it, if anything it's the opposite. People don't want to share bad news. We meant to say something but put it off, then a week passes, then a month, then three, then it feels very silly to even say anything at all. I've found time and time again it's always better to come back and say something even if it's been a long time.

Second, real life comes first. I've had to drop games, even in awkward places in the game's narrative. It's not fun, but ultimately this is a hobby for most of us. Things like family, friends, work, school, etc. take priority. Our lives and schedules change. I've learned to just accept this, and roll with it. This goes for both the GM and the players too. Getting a core group to last a long time is as much luck as it is skill as even the most dedicated players can have unexpected changes and need to leave.

Lastly, when possible, it's better to hurry things up a little if a game is in decline and/or we know that we won't have time anymore coming up. Whether this is a player letting their GM know they'd like a way to move their character out of the story, or the GM trying to resolve at least some loose threads, it's something to aspire to. We're not trying to publish the next hit fantasy series, it's just a game for fun so the conclusion doesn't have to be as smooth as we'd like. That being said, getting a good resolution comes if we can take care of real life first, and if people are still around.

Edited August 8, 2023 by Peacemonger (see edit history)

[Peacemonger]

Control & Power

Who is in control of the game? Who holds the power? In roleplaying games we all do. Yes, the GM can say, "rocks fall, everyone dies". If they do, the game is then over and the GM is no longer a GM. My hot take when it comes to the varying discussions of railroading a game, or DM vs. players, or having a game player-driven or not, it's too often we get caught in "what if" situations and spend too much getting ourselves riled over before anything even happens.

That being said, I've run into challenges here. I occasionally put in (non-lethal) scenarios that the PCs are meant to lose. I've found some players (often those who GM themselves) love these moments while others don't take well to it. In hindsight, I think this topic's harder than I've thought as though I've put expecting trips and stumbles in my game expectations for years, I've still had mixed results. It's not only a matter of accepting the idea that defeats or setbacks are meant to enhance the story, and that there are options within a losing situation on how one chooses to act (Kobayashi Maru from Star Trek, anyone?), this also requires some unlearning.

We all control the story's narrative, we all have power and influence over the game's outcome. The GM has a different, broader role is all. Yes, some GMs take power trips, and so too do players, but if we can assume good intent, communicate it when we feel we don't have options, it'll usually work itself out. When we believe that we've lost control and power, I've found time and time again people will get frustrated and lash out whether it's quitting, accusing someone of foul play, and/or through passive aggressiveness in the OOC/IC threads. All these are ways people can take the control they perceive they've lost back. Only by unlearning the idea that defeat = bad, tough situation = GM bullying, good roll didn't resolve the issue entirely = dice don't matter, etc. can we hope to avoid this. 

That all said, it's a skill for GMs, one I'm still working on continuously in finding different levels of player agency depending on the game, players, situation, etc. It's all on a learning curve.   

Edited March 29, 2023 by Peacemonger (see edit history)

[Peacemonger]

D&D 5e System

No system is perfect. No system can be perfect. Personally I prefer D&D 5e for a few reasons:

• Player Base: As the most popular system, don't have to worry about having enough players around. Aren't too many other systems I can say that for.
• Right Level of Complexity (for me): One common complaint of 5e is it's too simplified from previous versions. Honestly this is a plus for me, as I never quite got the hang of Pathfinder 1E beyond the first few levels, which from my understanding is very close to what D&D 3.5e was.
• Does the Job: The system works enough to tell a variety of fantasy stories, the mechanics at worst can be a bit inconvenient but hasn't been so much to take away from the game itself.

The other thing worth mentioning is I came to D&D 5e from Vampire the Masquerade, a game whose combat system in my opinion is pretty bad, so 5e was an upgrade. However, I was still fine with the VtM system as it was a horror game that was more about different situations being a predator, and in other cases dealing with supernatural creatures far more powerful. As such, a balance combat system didn't matter. I think this mindset carried me over to be grateful for what 5e had to offer, and less concerned in the combat rating system didn't add up. 

With 13 official classes, dozens of different lineages, archetypes, and backgrounds, with the ability to customize and homebrew... I think it offers enough variety and complexity that only our imagination can limit. If I think the resurrection is too easy? Great, can use Critical Role's homebrew rules to not make it a guarantee. Think that one PC is far stronger than the rest? No worries, can give the others some magic items to help boost them up. In general, whatever problems arise there are solutions.

This all said, for anyone looking for a balanced system, who want a game that's more fair and there's less need to tweak and balance it... I agree that D&D is not the best. If people came from a much more number-crunchy system like D&D 3.5e, can definitely see where 5e feels basic and diluted in comparison. It's all a matter of perspective and expectations, and luckily for me, 5e hits the right notes in my case.

Edited August 8, 2023 by Peacemonger (see edit history)

[Peacemonger]

Death

D&D 5e is known for being hard to kill player characters. With healing magic, different levels of resurrection spells, three rounds of death saving throws AFTER getting to 0 hit points... it takes very difficult fights AND bad dice for someone to usually die. Most (but not all) GMs don't want to be heavy handed, and therefore fights that lead to character deaths are typically few and far between. As I've slowly but surely made fights harder and harder in my games, I've been impressed with just how much higher a CR monster can have than the party level and the party still prevails.

For me, death is more common in two other situations. The first is when a player leaves the game, the second is the threat or possibility of death.

In general, I'm not keen on killing off PCs whose player leaves the game, even if they just ghosted. In part, I try to reserve judgement. Yes, a simple post or message saying, "Hey sorry, have to leave your game" is easy, but if someone is having real life challenges, not making a post that'll make them feel bad for leaving is understandable even if it's not ideal. Also, killing off a character is hard to make work well in the story when there's the OOC knowledge that it's because the players left. Usually, PC reactions are to awkwardly ignore it or give a quick "Oh no!" before never mentioning it again. There are other ways for a character to exit a story. Getting injured, deciding adventuring isn't for them, disappearing and letting their fate be up to interpretation, and more are ways I find easier to weave into a game and get a more natural response from players. If I were to kill off a PC in this game, I'd reserve it for a case for when I knew the players could work well with it, could add to the story, and where I'd be confident that the player (even if they're not around) would be okay with it. 

For myself though, many of my favorite moments in games as a player has been when my PC could've died. It's a rush. I remember my 3rd level Monk (flavored more as a bounty Bloodborne style mercenary) went several rounds with a Barbarian where one bad round could've been the end. I remember my 1st level Wizard noble getting a slightly above average saving throw so he didn't lose half his hit points and get pinned down with a single magic attack and then went on to save the day. It's not for everyone, some look for a game to dominate in, and I too enjoy crushing enemies with clever tactics and powerful spells, but those aren't the moments I necessarily remember years later. My conclusion then is even if death is rare in 5e, the possibility of it, the story tension its potential can bring, can be ever present if that's the game we want. 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Peacemonger (see edit history)

[Peacemonger]

Defeat

I treat defeat as distinct from death as defeat can be far more than a TPK (total party kill). It can range from one of the PC's plans being rejected in favor of someone else's, to having to run away, to being imprisoned, to losing a friendly NPC... all things that make for a good story. I feel that one of the roles of the GM is to offer the potential of defeat in different scenarios, and in some cases push a little harder to make a defeat happen for the sake of a compelling story and giving character's a chance to shine. How can a character shine in defeat? Well, like how many people find strength when the cards are down, the same can be said for PCs. Defeat also makes success taste so much sweeter. The bandit lord who was killed in their first fight? That's a miniboss. The bandit lord who outmaneuvered the party and torched the village? That's an enemy the players will savor putting an end to.

This is my approach and my preference. I try to use defeat sparingly. Just like success if defeat is used too often it loses its punch. I have found that this style doesn't work for a number of players. I've learned ways to tweak and refine my approach, give more chances for small victories, to time my moments better, etc. It is something I want to keep in my games, so to a degree it is also making it clear upfront that defeats are if not inevitable at least likely, and to have the kinds of players who're good with that kind of game. 

It's one reason I love putting non-combat challenges into games. Losing a deadly fight can be devastating. Losing a rural fair competition trying to herd chickens (actual example I did in a game) is silly and fun. We can be creative with this aspect of the game as much as anything else. 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Peacemonger (see edit history)

[Peacemonger]

Evil Characters

When I say "evil" character, I mean a character that could be reasonably given an "evil" alignment, knowing that alignment is loose and up to interpretation, such as the power-hungry noble, the fallen antipaladin, the monstrous brute, etc., etc. My take is first it depends on the game, some stories and games lend itself better to morally questionable PCs than others. Second and most important, can said darker character serve as a protagonist? Is the character suitable to be a main character in a story with enough plot hooks, depth, room for growth, the ability for an audience to cheer for or at least be curious about their journey? If the interest is playing a character with no redeeming qualities, with only darkness and villainy within... probably better to GM a game and play the NPCs.

The other facet with evil characters is remembering the social aspect of the game, and having a character that can function within a group. Whether you're fighting a dungeon full of demon cultists or temple with angels, there's still an aspect of teamwork both tactically as well as working towards a common cause. A backstabbing character whether it's a klepto Rogue, an overzealous Paladin, or someone who's "evil", unless such actions are agreed upon by the group, it likely won't go over well. "But I'm evil!" is just another version of "this is what my character would do" when we as players are in full control of our character, are not tied down to who or what our character has to do. 

I think too often we try to make an evil character or evil game different than a normal one, when it's really not. As such, I think a better alternative than doing something that is "evil", lean into the more specific, nuanced concept you're interested in. "I want to put myself in the shoes of a necromancer who doesn't value life" offers more than "I want to be an evil wizard". "I want a once righteous hero who lost faith in the world and seeks to destroy what they once defended" is a story whereas "I'm an evil knight" is just the start of a concept. Take on that story as you would any other character, with the same considerations to the GM's setting, the other players, the game expectations, etc. and it should work out just fine. 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Peacemonger (see edit history)

[Peacemonger]

Fourth Wall

Breaking the fourth wall, or in other words, to jump into the real world, is a matter of personal taste. Whether it's to quote a poem or song we know, to make a cheeky comment about d&d rules and mechanics through a PC, or even to make a character who's meant to come from present day Earth, there's different ways to put some reality into fantasy. Personally, it's not my style. My preference is if I'm to jump into a game of swords and magic, to be in the world of swords and magic. That being said, there's a lot out there about real world people getting thrust into fantastical settings, it's a common plot device, I'd just recommend people check in first if it's what they want.

There's also a more subtle way to break the fourth wall, that being to take our modern day sensibilities to settings where it isn't as common. Once again, a matter of preference, but if the adventurers from a feudal kingdom feel there should be a modern democratic system put in place, then it is essentially the same theme as an Earth-born human to come in and discuss the merits of their political system. It can be a small difference between "I want to overthrow the King and help the people of the land" and "I think a government of checks and balances broken into three distinct branches" that turns something from fantasy, to fantasy and real world melded together. Like the above, I prefer to be more indirect. 

Still, stories are meant to tell lessons, explore themes, to learn. We can explore class relations by using nobles and peasants, a magocracy that oversees those without the gift, or we can conjure up elitist mercantile class who control business along with a working class that supports them that's a bit more on the nose. The thing I'd caution people on though is once the fourth wall dips into social and political opinions, even sticking to the site rules to avoid real world politics, getting too close to it with fantasy equivalents may reveal sharp differences among the players and GM. This is why I personally try to stray more on the safe side, to let decisions of players not be so easily compared to real world situations directly.    

[Peacemonger]

Humor

Humor... is also subjective, which is a common theme in my GM Opinions. Humor can add a lot to games. For one, humor is good in and of itself. For two, it helps us not take the game to seriously especially when things don't go our way. For three, it adds another layer of emotion that can complement drama, action, etc. for a more complete whole. I try to add moments of levity and humor in my games for all of the above reasons.

There are some challenges I've experienced with humor. Different humor styles don't appeal to everyone. That's okay. The challenge is when we expect, even feel entitled to have people see our character and/or their actions as funny, but it's not a given. In those times, just roll with it just like in real life not every joke lands with every audience. There's also the tendency of some characters to be a joke in and of themselves. Their whole point is to be funny, and every situation regardless of how dire, how serious, how sorrowful feels it's a moment to make some giggles and yuks. Then the jokes land less and less often, which in turn creates a cycle where the PC tries harder, which then continues the jokes not being that effective. My recommendation is that characters can be humorous first, but they should not be humorous only. Just as a character that is always grim can get stale, so too for a character always making a punchline.

The final thing on humor is be mindful of who's the butt of the joke. A group of bandits? Probably good. The evil Lich mastermind? Maybe, but best have a strategy to fight it or escape. The snooty bureaucrat? Probably good. The ruling Queen? Might want to check her sense of humor before landing the party in hot water. Other PCs? Depends. Read the room, or better yet, just ask.