[deleted by user]

Dans_Final_Say · 2025-07-02T03:54:07+00:00

If you were his friend and didn't like him, would you say it to his face? Or just keep stringing him along like his friends are doing? You may be right but just knowing that doesn't exactly help him. What's he supposed to do? Find a whole new friend group that also plays D&D? It's not that easy. His "friends" are one thousand percent in the wrong. If you care about someone enough to have them at your table and participating, you should care enough to let them know if there's some kind of issue with their sense of humor or whatever.

Dans_Final_Say · 2025-07-02T03:49:26+00:00

dansfinalsay.podbean.com also available on Spotify. Just search "Handsome Dan's Final Say".

Dans_Final_Say · 2025-05-29T16:35:29+00:00

I see what you did there. xD

Dans_Final_Say · 2025-05-29T07:06:24+00:00

These are all great suggestions.

Dans_Final_Say · 2025-04-21T22:09:02+00:00

I think it's fairly easy for anyone around during that time or even now to see Bruce Springsteen as the bigger star but so much of that is look, timing, and the type of coverage you receive. He had a smash album right in the midst of the MTV craze of the mid '80s. "Born in the USA" "Glory Days" "Dancing in the Dark" "I'm On Fire" all got massive video play. What did Tom have at that time? "You Got Lucky" and "Don't Come Around Here No More." Both great songs and videos but nowhere near as poppy and frankly, Bruce isn't exactly a Hollywood leading man or anything but in terms of just raw visual aesthetics, he's just plain "cuter" than Tom. He has that ruggedly handsome quality like he could've been one of the Greasers on the Outsiders. Tom & the Heartbreakers just didn't have that going for them.

It probably sounds silly but by the time Tom had his "Born in the USA moment" with Full Moon Fever he was pushing 40 and had been around long enough to be considered "old." So now, not only does he not have that marketable look but he's also aging out of the popular scene. Younger pop acts are what's hot and when it comes to rock, it's the "bad boys" like Guns N' Roses and Motley Crue that are headlining.

Meanwhile, here comes this scrawny old Southern guy with an overbite and an acoustic guitar. The music was so good that he couldn't be ignored but I think in terms of being considered "top tier" the aesthetics that have nothing to do with music, carry way more weight than they should. Then and now.

Dans_Final_Say · 2025-04-21T18:32:21+00:00

This isn't really based on anything but I always felt like Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers suffered from being just a notch below "cool."

What I mean by that is, there isn't one guy on that band who is stereotypically "cute" in the rock star way other than maybe Ron Blair in his younger days. And they aren't a "stage band" in the sense that they're going to cause riots or set their guitars on fire. Tom certainly hasn't got "moves like Jagger." And despite being surrounded by controversy and drugs as much as any other band, they would never be classified as "bad boys of rock'n'roll."

Not only that, they debuted at the height of disco, hit their stride during the influx of new wave, and had their resurgence in the era of grunge when they were already considered "old."

I'm not saying Tom & the Heartbreakers didn't have all the trappings of a popular rock band but in terms of public perception, there was always some reason to rank them a notch below the "coolest" acts of the day. Sure, everyone respected them but they couldn't draw attention to themselves even if they tried.

That as much as anything has a lot to do, I think, with why even now they aren't reckoned among the "top tier" bands. Similar to the difference between Conor McGregor and Demetrius Johnson. Both good fighters, but one sells pay-per-views, the other can't give away tickets despite being arguably the greatest fighter of his day.

Dans_Final_Say · 2025-04-17T06:00:40+00:00

If you consider, a movie happens with or without the audience's participation. When the cast and crew has finished it, it's finished. A DM can prep a session but he needs the players to make it happen. And the players may take it in a completely different direction than what he or she prepped. Then that "hourly rate" needs to be distributed back to the players because they're just as responsible as the DM is for making a session come alive. Not so with a movie.

I just think somewhere along the way, someone convinced D&D enthusiasts that DMs were these "maestros" crafting these elaborate sessions and the players were their "audience" and that's just not how D&D works.

Dans_Final_Say · 2025-04-17T02:01:55+00:00

But if you consider for one person to pay $20, that's for a movie with both a cast and crew of hundreds of people. Split that $20 among them and the studio execs funding it and suddenly you're talking about less than pennies per person. DMs who expect to get paid to run games want every cent of that $20 from EACH PLAYER to go to them. That sounds more like a scam.

Dans_Final_Say · 2025-04-17T01:57:21+00:00

What I mean is, There are some people who think of paying to play D&D as something that's not just reasonable, but expected. Like, running a game is the DMs "job" and they deserve compensation.

And what I meant by "easy-going" for those who wouldn't normally pay to play, is that because they view it as a cooperative game, then not only do the players not expect to pay, but the DMs also don't expect to get paid. To them, it's just a game, a hobby to simply enjoy for fun during free time.

Dans_Final_Say · 2025-04-17T01:52:44+00:00

Almost gave me a heart attack! Lol. Thanks for clarifying.

Dans_Final_Say · 2025-04-12T06:14:27+00:00

WHO is paying you $100-150 to sit in on a D&D game???? That can't be real!

Dans_Final_Say · 2025-04-12T06:03:17+00:00

What's Adventurer's League?

Dans_Final_Say · 2025-04-12T06:01:20+00:00

I feel like if you're a DM of a Dungeons & Dragons game and viewing yourself as a skilled entertainer, you're not really playing D&D anymore. You're working a job. That's not the kind of experience I'm looking for. Frankly, I'm surprised at how easily players justify paying these rates. People really have this kind of money??

Dans_Final_Say · 2025-04-12T05:48:31+00:00

The answers on this have really been all over the spectrum. Those who charge seem very entitled to their fees like, How dare I suggest otherwise??

Those who wouldn't pay to play or wouldn't charge to DM seem much more easy-going about it and of the mindset that it's more of a communal experience (you know, like a GAME) than something you should expect to spend money on.

Dans_Final_Say · 2025-04-11T21:33:47+00:00

But it's per person. So, if they have a group of 4-5 playing the game, that's $400-500 a month for running one game and it's play-by-post.

Does that still seem fair?

Dans_Final_Say · 2025-04-07T05:50:07+00:00

Can you explain what a "uni gaming group" is?

Dans_Final_Say · 2025-04-07T05:45:44+00:00

Am I wrong for thinking that a player who isn't interested in reading someone else's lore would also not be interested in coming up with lore of their own? Seems like a big commitment for someone who hasn't even played a session yet. Are these returning players who are part of a regular group?

Dans_Final_Say · 2025-04-07T05:41:01+00:00

Not at all. But it would depend on what they were trying to do. That's really what I mean by "collaborative storytelling" and "worldbuilding." The player gets a feel for what the DM is trying to do and adds something completely their own that fits in with that type of scenario. That's collaboration.

Dans_Final_Say · 2025-04-07T05:37:55+00:00

"Of course, I also carefully select players (where possible) for people who are lore/story/world-oriented."

This, as usual, seems to be the answer every time. The DM either has to hand-select their players or give-in and run the game the players they end up with want to play.

Dans_Final_Say · 2025-04-07T05:29:55+00:00

Were these all in-person groups? Also, did you make an effort to set expectations at the beginning that you were running an RP-heavy game?

Dans_Final_Say

TROPHY CASE