Over the holiday I made a "dice funnel" to let me players roll their own secret checks. It was an I'm bored and I am not going to do real work project. Basically, the players throw the d20 into the funnel and tells me their modifier, it drops it gently down into my cardboard dice tower, and finally into a tray on my staging table. After the roll I hand it back down the table. Seemed fun, so I kept it up for one session for each game. Now the players are unanimous that it should stay. They are never unanimous on the first take. Jokes on me. They also say the polka dots (the oldest bed sheet we had) have to stay. No eye of sauron for me. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FDKpvHdGXCI. Context: In PF2e when a character would not immediately know the result of a skill check (e.g. stealth) it is a secret roll and the GM is supposed to roll for the player. On VTTs the player hit roll, but sees ?? on the dice, in person I didn't have a solution.

There's something about moving Blades forward 100 Years that seems really appealing. Maybe it's just because I recently rediscovered the game Deathloop, or the more modern geo-political themes that can be woven into the narrative, I'm not sure. https://www.backerkit.com/call_to_action/bbd583d2-7c42-478b-a4f2-4c73f30e7022/landing

Since I started running proactive games, and especially with some collaborative worldbuilding, my games tend to be very fast paced. There’s always something going on, and my players are always sprinting forward as fast as they can. I’ve had a few groups say they want to turn down the speed a bit and have some lower stakes sessions, which they always call beach episodes lol, some time to just chill, talk to people, shop, engage in some tomfoolery, downtime, etc. I highly recommend incorporating that, especially if your players mention it. At first, it really went against my instincts—as a GM, I tend to prep by adding as much tension, raised stakes, and drama as I can cram in my notes, and I prep by specific encounter using a PC v NPC goal structure. So the more free form, laidback stuff made me nervous that it would be boring for my players—I felt like I had so little prepared! But it’s always resulted in a great time. My players will have the opportunity to do stuff they never would otherwise, and the Freeform format makes it so they really steer the story themselves. I’ll do very little and relax, and they’ll talk amongst themselves, form more goals, make allies and enemies, etc. anyone else had some good seasons this way? How did you prep for it?

For GMs who regularly run games with people they didn’t already know. Bonus points if you’ve ever been paid for it. Hey everyone —I found this community after reading Proactive Roleplaying (which I love), and it got me thinking more deeply about why some tables hold together for months (or years) while others slowly fall apart. I’m especially curious about games with strangers or semi-strangers, where chemistry isn’t a given and commitment is harder to predict. Rather than asking for advice, I’m trying to understand patterns. So I’ll start with one question: When a campaign falls apart, what’s usually the first crack you notice? A few optional prompts if it helps you think it through (no need to answer all of them): - Is it something mechanical (scheduling, rules, pacing), or something social? - Does it usually show up early, or after a few sessions? - Did you see it coming, or did it blindside you? If you’re comfortable sharing, I’d also love context like: - Whether you run paid or unpaid games - Whether your players usually come from friends, marketplaces, Discord, etc. I’m mainly interested in how real tables behave — not how we wish they did. Thanks in advance. I’ll be reading and asking follow-ups if that’s okay.

I’ve been working on a homebrew campaign setting and campaign for about 4-5 months now. The group is set to have its session 0 in late January. The campaign setting seems fine, just some short gazetteers on nations, cities, leader NPC’s, etc. As for the campaign I may be overdoing it, over planning, and frankly I think it’s set up for reactive gaming. I finished the book Collaborative Campaign Design a couple of weeks ago and I just started Proactive Roleplaying. I’m only one chapter in and I think I’ve gone way overboard on the campaign. I have created an entire outline for the campaign already. I started with the BBEG, made 4 lieutenants, one per tier-arc, and worked backwards to make this campaign outline. Now I haven’t planned every little detail. My plan was to give the players “missions” that they could choose from. However, I still think this is reactive gaming. The overall arc of the campaign is that a new leader took over a nation and has become a tyrant, attempting to control magic users, remove all influences of races other than human, etc. I based all this on the Earth Civil War from the 90’s Sci-fi show, Babylon 5. The players already know some of this as I gave them the following as the campaign pitch: The first campaign takes place in the Free Concord, a nation founded on liberty and open debate, now buckling under the rule of a new High Chancellor. You’ll begin the story as fugitives, pulled into a growing resistance as cities fracture, laws tighten, and magic itself comes under suspicion. This is a campaign focused on political intrigue, moral gray areas, and meaningful choices. It’s about deciding what freedom is worth as the costs continue to rise. So, they are expecting that. I already have the first two short adventures created. Should I just scrap all this work I’ve done and wait until session 0 to get the character’s goals? I’m sure I could probably work their goals into what I’ve already created somehow. As I read chapter 1 of Proactive Roleplaying, I thought to myself that I should just scrap it. Explain the campaign setting to the players at session 0, then let them decide where in the world they want to play, instead of forcing the Free Concord Civil War on them. What to do?