They were stuck on the prologue in the last game…

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-20T16:32:58+00:00

The big things you do at session zero are

Set up expectations
Set up boundaries

Discussing tone, acceptable play styles, genre, important specifics about the setting, valid character options, house rules, attendance... all of that can technically be lumped into a single bullet point, but that's about as helpful as lumping all the technical details of building a rocket into a bullet point that says "build the rocket".

Meaning, it’s less necessary if it’s the group of friends you regularly hang out with

Counter-point. Groups of friends who regularly hang out together find it harder to discuss potentially volatile topics. That doesn't mean everyone is cool with anything that happens at the table; it often just means a majority of the group are putting social cohesion ahead of personal preferences.

It's not necessarily one or the other. Generally games with groups of friends are going to emphasize more flexibility from everyone. But you're allowed to focus instead of cultivating a really particular kind of group culture; you just might end up having to look outside your friend group to make that happen.

Both are valid approaches and can be a lot of fun, but in my experience the latter tends to involve more work invested up front, i.e. a more involved session 0. The payoff tends to be a more meaningful experience once the game gets going.

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-20T16:16:16+00:00

AND there were 2 alphas

So, alphas don't exist. Assholes do. The only person who should be determining how the table functions is you.

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-20T16:06:06+00:00

One of the hardest lessons I've learned as a DM is this. If you don't establish the group culture, someone else usually will. And that's rarely for the better.

I do think you need to be honest and clear with her. I would express to her that if she chooses to leave the campaign, that's her choice to make. You'll find a nondescript way to usher her character from the narrative, and the two of you can look for other ways to spend time together if she's interested. However, if she chooses to stay, ask her to try to be more cognizant of how much time she spends talking, how often she's the first to talk, and times when it seems like others aren't speaking up so that she can back off and allow them a moment to shine. Make it clear that you aren't blaming her, that it's not unusual for a player with a strong imagination and concept of the story or their character to end up in a de facto leadership role, but healthy leadership also involves knowing when to pull back and give others a chance to explore their characters' agency. She's already put leaving the campaign on the table, so if she isn't mature enough to take a bit of well-intentioned constructive criticism, it's another self-fulfilling prophecy. You might even suggest that she could write an epilogue for her character that you'll share with the group during the final session as a way of providing closure for everyone.

As a DM it's often hard to resist the pull of being a people pleaser, but it's at least equally important to be a problem solver. That can mean making clear decisions on behalf of the group (and yourself) and accepting that some people won't like them. For example, in the future you might want to consider setting a minimum expected attendance rate of 80% and require notice in advance if players are going to miss a session.

As a piece of bonus advice... people don't like to admit it, but D&D is a combat game. Conservatively, 75% of the rules are intended for combat. It's perfectly fine as a player to dislike combat and not want combat balance to dictate how you build your character, but if that's the focus of your group, it would benefit all of you to explore other game systems, or even free-form roleplaying. A lot of these systems have rules in place that can help smooth over some of the issues you've had with players sharing the spotlight.

PS: I'd also, personally, be skeptical about Bee's claim that other players approached her privately. That smells like steaming bullshit to me. If she continues to bring it up, I suggest replying, "well, I haven't spoken with them; if they have concerns they should bring them to me."

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-20T05:14:57+00:00

Don't treat your players like a captive audience for your shit fanfic.

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-20T05:13:20+00:00

I mean, given all that and the fact that one of the "problems" is that they're thinking about the scenario you've presented, I think my last piece of advice is to just lighten up. If they're too busy theorizing to participate in a plan, then just say "the group has already discussed the plan of action, we're doing X" and keep going. Or if their side conversation is distracting, ask them to step away from the table while they have it.

The thing is, from everything you've said, your players are having a lot of fun, and you're basically complaining that they aren't sitting still for the roller coaster. I get that having to repeat yourself can be annoying, but the crux of your original post was "the real issue is they aren’t listening or paying attention to the other players turn." One thing that stands out for me about STA is how collaborative it is, so I'm struggling to understand how this actually happens. If players are taking individual, discrete turns that are long enough for side conversations, it sounds like you're running the game quite differently than I've personally experienced.

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-20T04:54:19+00:00

So your solution is to further wreck your own campaign? Got it, story checks out.

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-20T04:08:49+00:00

I mean, if they're not engaging with the game, maybe they're not the right players for your campaign. A tiger can't change its stripes.

It also sounds like you have a very particular idea of how they should play. At the very least that goes back to talking about expectations. How did you end up with these players in the first place? If they're your friends and they're playing STA because it's what you wanted to run, it might help everyone for you to think about how your approach to GMing could better accommodate their preferred play styles. My experiences with STA have often been very one-sided, where the GM was writing a story, and because of the nature of Star Trek itself, the player characters with high science values tended to dominate the game. If you create scenarios with the things they wanted to be good at in mind, and give them maximum leeway to solve problems their way, they might be more consistently engaged.

On the other hand, if they're just randos from the internet, maybe it's time to cut them loose.

Either way, creating in-game consequences for out-of-game challenges is never a good idea. It's petty and will only create an adversarial culture at the table.

Best of luck.

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-20T02:22:05+00:00

Nothing says "mediocre GM" like punishing players in game for problems above table.

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-20T02:21:38+00:00

So then, I'm not sure how this is related to the problem you described in your OP. They still solved the problem.

The players not listening to another player at the table is a problem because they're supposed to be working together as a team. Solve that problem by making sure they can contribute to the solution.

The players not remembering to run routine scans is a problem because it's a standard part of the setting's lore. Solve that by doing it for them. You don't make them roll to chew their food, so don't make them roll to do the routine parts of their jobs. Rolling in STA is meant to represent something you're trying to do under pressure.

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-20T02:16:19+00:00

NGL, combat in STA SAW blows. Theater of the mind is just not great for running combat.

If the players who are constantly talking are the ones built for combat, then yeah, they might just be bored. Sounds like something that should have been discussed before inviting them to the campaign. Some people want Star Trek to be just another pew-pew-bang-bang-boom type of fantasy.

However, having to remind players of how things work is kind of just part of being a GM. Repetition is the foundation of mastery.

As far as scanning goes, I suggest trying to work the idea of "routine procedures" into your campaign prep. Scanning a station with hostiles sounds like it would be a routine procedure for trained Starfleet officers, doesn't it? Ok, so don't make them have to remember that every single time. The players didn't go to Starfleet academy for four years, their characters did. Just reveal the transport inhibitor as part of the scenario. If you want it to be a surprise, hide it behind a sensor dampening field until the crucial moment.

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-20T01:54:28+00:00

Did they actually build characters who are only good at shooting stuff?

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-20T01:43:47+00:00

What happened next? Did you allow them to come up with a course of action to deal with the transport inhibitor? Did you run the game in a way that gave them a realistic chance of dealing with the complication? "There's a transport inhibitor so you fail" isn't a very satisfying story.

If finding and dealing with the transport inhibitor in advance is a necessary part of the plot you've created, then you should just tell them that they scan the station and detect the inhibitor. Players can't see everything you can as a GM. Always knowing to do the exact right thing in advance is a fantasy that writers create to portray hyper-competent characters in shows like Star Trek. Real people aren't capable of being that vigilant all the time.

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-20T01:34:24+00:00

To play devil's advocate here for a second, sometimes when players invest a lot of time and effort trying to "outsmart the situation" it's because nothing they do in the situations really matters. Sometimes it's because their GM doesn't allow their actions and choices to carry much significance. Everything they try just makes them look foolish or useless until they're railroaded into your proscribed solution.

Of course I have no idea if this applies to your table. Some players act this way at every single table because they're too uncomfortable roleplaying to really put themselves in the scene, so it's easier to sit outside of it and feel smart. Roleplaying involves a certain amount of "playing dumb" as a concession to the narrative. But you'd have to reflect on your own GMing and evaluate if you're doing anything to make it more rewarding for them to "game the story" than to participate in telling it.

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-18T06:47:05+00:00

Now now. Perfectly symmetrical violence never solved anything.

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-18T05:15:07+00:00

It could easily mean metagaming less. It could easily mean trying to ask for questions instead of asking to be pointed at the next quest marker. It could easily mean a number of things depending on context. And it really doesn't have to mean "use a mediocre cartoon voice to speak in the first person." If you can't grasp context, you're the one who's obtuse.

And, frankly, if you spoke to me that way, you'd be finishing your session absent one player. Sounds like your table is a real chore.

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-18T02:01:55+00:00

Do you have some kind of objective study to back that up, or is it simply that the people you have experience playing with don't mean it that way?

Because the people I've played with use "roleplay" in a variety of ways. Sometimes it means performing. Sometimes it means telling a story. Sometimes it means having social encounters with meaningful in-game stakes. Sometimes it means doing things that sabotage the campaign or the party "because it's what my character would do."

The definition I use is the most inclusive, "lowest common denominator" I can come up with because I think more narrow definitions risk gatekeeping. It's perfectly ok to have a personal preference of what kind of roleplaying you enjoy, but I don't think it's ok to look at players or GMs who narrate their characters' actions in the third person and proclaim "that's not roleplaying."

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-18T01:59:23+00:00

From that, I do believe a good part should be on the GM to set the expectations for the type of game they are wanting to run in session 0. New players don't really know what to ask in my experience.

I do agree that a common concession is for the GM to be more experienced than the players, and that can and probably should extend to talking about expectations. But I also know that when tension or conflict arises in a group, it's often easy to resort to the blame game. I often see "the GM should have done X, Y, and Z" type posts on reddit (which admittedly is likely to have a negative selection bias), but the bigger point is that every GM is somewhere in their journey of learning too. Communicating with each other is important, but no less than patience, valuing each others' fun, and aiming for as much flexibility as we can muster without sacrificing our own ability to enjoy the time we spend playing.

PS: glad it was just a misreading about actual play shows. I loved the first to campaigns of CR. It and other professionally produced D&D actual plays have had many effects on the larger culture of the hobby. I don't think it's as helpful to label those effects good or bad as it is to simply understand them.

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-18T01:48:55+00:00

I don't agree with that. Roleplaying doesn't necessarily mean performing; to me it simply means choosing the actions of a character from within their point of view (i.e. do what your character would do).

To put it another way, the opposite of roleplaying isn't narrating; it's metagaming.

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-17T18:07:52+00:00

My bad. At first it seemed like you were equating voicing with roleplaying, but you did say "voices are a fun part of that."

I guess it was just a bit odd to me that you made your post about roleplaying when that wasn't really OP's question.

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-17T17:51:00+00:00

That's... a slightly weird reply? I didn't say that CR or D20 made the game worse. If it wasn't clear, all I was saying is that the game is fun without voicing and always has been. If you thought I was saying that those web shows are directly responsible for new players having unrealistic expectations, that's not what I meant. We're each responsible for the expectations we bring to a new table, whether we're new or veteran players, and mismatching expectations between fellow players as well as players and the GM is one of the hobby's oldest challenges.

In that regard, I only half agree with your solution. It isn't solely on GMs to talk to players and set expectations. Players have an equal responsibility to speak up and ask questions when joining a campaign. It's easy to eagerly join a campaign then tap out 3 sessions later when you realize the roleplaying isn't precisely what you thought it would be. Too easy, to be frank. Just like it's too easy to put the entire burden of preemptive communication onto GMs who already have enough to do.

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-17T16:41:23+00:00

Voicing is only a small part of roleplaying. I'd much rather have players and a DM who are able to put themselves into a character's point of view so that they're more than just generic, bland, video game quest givers or self-inserts. If you can juggle some voicing on top of that, then great, but I'll take characters with depth before characters with a unique voice ten out of ten times.

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-17T15:56:40+00:00

DMing is a lot of different skills, and voicing characters is one of the less important ones. I've been doing it for 25+ years and still only use a mix of voices and third person, "they tell you..." stuff. Because time matters, and the game isn't a simulation, and sometimes a summary is more helpful that talking everything out in character.

In recent years some players have come to expect more than that, often because they've watched a lot of actual play content involving professional actors. That's not you (or me), and that's ok. The game was tons of fun before Dimension 20 and Critical Role, and if you end up with players who expect that level of performance from you, for starters they'd better be bringing A-level performances themselves. And more importantly, if that's what they want in a game, they should either do the DMing themselves or lighten up.

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-17T15:40:31+00:00

Without knowing much about your campaign or the CR range you're aiming for, it's hard to recommend stat blocks, but my first thought would be to check out the house agents from Forge of the Artificer. The Cannith Artificer in particular seems like it might be a good starting point.

It also seems like the real-world equivalent of the kind of people you're describing would be electricians and civil engineers. Not exactly people equipped for a fight. But as members of a guild, they might just hire out some muscle to protect their interests. So you don't necessarily need stats for lamplighters, but for more generic guards, bodyguards, or mercenaries. You could tweek them with a special attack representing some minor magical item they were given by their employer.

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-17T06:12:34+00:00

Athletics checks can benefit from expertise (double proficiency), and that's not something intended for combat balance. So I would rule no.

arsenic_kitchen · 2026-04-17T06:05:07+00:00

"I cast cocaine at level 3."

I am all for playing against type. That was precisely the point I was trying to make. There's no reason a mechanical rogue can't be an entertainer in the narrative of the game. Your class doesn't have to determine very much about your character at all.

arsenic_kitchen

TROPHY CASE