.webp)
For the past three years, I have been dropping dispatches, tips, and tactical strategies into the TTRPG community. And like clockwork, whenever I suggest a mechanic designed to inject actual danger or conflict into a session, the internet trolls emerge from the woodwork to complain.
"The GM isn't supposed to be against the players." "You're toxic." "Ok, Boomer." (For the record, I am Gen X, and you can go pound sand).
The pushback forces me to ask a serious question: What exactly is happening at your tables? Are your monsters just taking the party out on shopping sprees? Does everyone get along perfectly? Is there absolutely no inter-party conflict?
In short, how boring is your game?
One of the loudest complaints you hear from Game Masters online is the nightmare of scheduling. Getting a group of adults to commit to a time slot is treated like a Herculean task because everyone is always flaking.
Let me be incredibly blunt: If your players are hard to schedule, it is probably because your game is boring as hell.
Look at the modern landscape of role-playing, from online forums to the massive popularity of digital RPGs like Baldur's Gate 3. Half the discourse out there is entirely focused on which characters are sleeping with each other. The meme of the Bard or Druid trying to seduce every creature they encounter isn't a meme because it's funny; it's a meme because it is true.
If all your table does is roll for romance and shop for cloaks, no wonder your players are finding other things to do on a Friday night.
When was the last time you killed a Player Character or a beloved NPC? When was the last time your players were at each other's throats over a critical, high-stakes tactical decision? When was the last time you let the party wipe because they did something fundamentally stupid?
I know I will catch heat for this post, but I do not care anymore. The modern obsession with games needing to be completely "safe," "friendly," and "just for fun" is nonsense.
Games are meant to be crucibles. They are supposed to force you into situations where you have to make agonizing decisions, so you can learn from your failures in a simulated environment. The harder the game, the deadlier the challenge, the better equipped you become to overcome adversity.
I understand that games are a diversion, but they serve a much deeper purpose.
Historically, rough sports and tactical exercises existed to keep men fit and thinking strategically in peacetime, so they were prepared for the harsh realities of war. Myth, legend, and story exist for the exact same reason: to let us explore existential dangers and figure out how to survive them, or at least how to die with honor. They teach us hard truths without the literal physical danger, providing context and mental fortitude for when we face genuine adversity in the real world.
I know exactly when the cultural shift away from this mindset happened.
In 1997, I bought a copy of The Game of Life. My girl and I played it on a rainy afternoon. At the end of the first game, I noticed we both finished with the exact same amount of stuff. So, we played it again. We played three times in a row, and every single time, we both came out completely even, regardless of the choices we made. The mechanics had been sanitized. Everyone wins at the game of life now.
And we all know that is a lie.
If you want players blowing up your phone, begging to know when you are running the next session, you have to give them stakes. Make it dangerous. Make it deadly. Make them earn every single inch of progress with blood.
If you are ready to run a campaign that respects the brutal reality of survival, you need PsychScape Historical.
You can secure the core rules directly on the Man of Ages website, or pick up your physical copy by searching PsychScape on Amazon.
Equip yourself, and happy gaming.
