I'm not sure how "Players control their characters, I control the rest of the world" is somehow coming up as bad GMing.

Or how in the world GMs should feel privileged to have players play in their games. I'll just say, as someone who hasn't played in a game in years and years and years, because I've ran every game I've been in in recent memory, there are way way way way more players than GMs in the tabletop community. And a good GM is even rarer.

If you want to paint him saying its his table so he makes the rules of the game as being some kind of dictator, that same level of putting words in peoples mouths makes me want to say you are an entitled player who takes for granted the rarity of a good GM and the amount of work that goes into doing it.

But I'm sure that is not what you are saying, so I have no interest in actually accusing you of that. So how about you give him the same courtesy.

I'm more often a GM than a player, by far. As for there being more players than GMs, absolutely, but a player can play a board game or a videogame or read a book and still take a ride. Being a GM can't be replicated by jumping media, unless you can get published as a writer. So just because there are plenty of players, doesn't mean a GM shouldn't be thankful when he finds good ones.

As for trying to "own" the world being bad GMing, if you look at modern indie RPGs, that's exactly what the community is saying. A very large percentage of modern systems are built around the idea of player input and narrative being key to the entire experience. There are the remaining oldschool systems, like D&D, Shadowrun, Pathfinder, and the like, but there are very few experienced players I've introduced to a system like Dungeon World, and not had them love it for how open it is. Or you go to 13th Age, which finds a middleground between D&D and Dungeon World for those who still want some crunch.

Games where the players have a say automatically create a connection and investment. Investment is what creates stories that are told years later. Obviously oldschool methods result in that too, but in my experience it goes up proportionally the more the players feel like they are part of the process.

And like I said, I'm not saying his games are no fun, but the way he's talking, it comes across as terrible. And when his response to criticism is "Tough."? That doesn't help the image. That makes me think of the grognardiest of grognards that try to rule with an iron fist. Unfortunately, more and more systems slip through their fingers, because that's not the sort of gaming that is going to survive. That is now becoming a niche within a niche.

The Apocalypse Engine games, FATE, Cortex, those are the system that are going to own the next generation and beyond. And the method of GMing being offered up, where the GM is the singular God and all shall bow before Him? That is their antithesis.

People might disagree with me, and that's fine, but personally, when I do play, if I want a rigid set of laws, I can go play a PC or console RPG. But in a tabletop RPG? I can sit down and ask a player "What are you doing working for Jabba th Hutt?" and they can tell me that they're getting protection from Onomatopoeia the Hutt, who is vying for control of Tatooine via brand new moisture farming technology.

Do I have any idea who Onomatopoeia the Hutt is, or what the technology is? Nope! But that is now becoming a part of my game that will be at least a repeated mention if not more, because that player, by being allowed that, and having those contributions become a part of the game world? He's more connected to it in that one second than a "God-King" GM's methods could get him in numerous sessions by trying to force him to care about things he has no relation to.

And given that the point is to experience and play together, thinking that any one participant has 100% control is, in my opinion, bad.

They cared more about politics than doing the right thing. They were a ineffectual body hampered by bureaucracy. They were not what Jedi should be.

Hell, putting aside all the Clone Wars and video game material and going by JUST what we see on the screen, it's plainly obvious that the Jedi Order is broken to the core, completely out of touch with The Common Man and ineffectual at best. The prophesy to bring balance to the force is not a 1-1 parity of Sith to Jedi, it's that the very order itself is out of balance and needs a good asskicking to bring it back in line. Anakin's job was not to kill all the Jedi, but to deconstruct the order so his son could fix it.

As for Ahsoka she deserved to be handed over for trial. She was pretty much doing everything she could to make herself look guilty. That's a large part of why her being mad at the Jedi for not trusting her so utterly pathetic. That and the fact she expected the Republic and Jedi to trust her when her actions proved she didn't trust them at all.

Although to be fair, that is one of the bog standard tropes of writing: present your case in the worst possible way imaginable to extend the story as long as you can. Why do you think that every single time travler from the future trying to prevent a Major Disaster will always look like he's a raving lunitic instead of presenting a rational case.

It's In The Script.

Tough, basically. No-one is forced to play in my games and my players tell me I run some of the best games around. If I put a lot of work into creating a setting I enjoy, someone doesn't get to throw in things that would spoil it for me because their likes should override mine. I set rules. If someone were forced to play my game you might have a point. Instead, they are invited. What makes you think that their wishes should override mine? Especially when I've worked so hard on it?

Well, if it works for your table, more power to you I guess - but man, in my book that is completely bass-ackeards from what a good GM should be.

The whole point of this interactive story telling is that the whole table has fun, that every single person there is responsible for telling a kickass story. The GM is the cornerstone of that, sure - the setting, the general arc, the tone, the book-keeping - that's all his bailiwick. But if the players come up with an awesome (yet insane) plan that they're really excited about that completely bypasses chapter 3 of your game - well, chapter three gotta take the fall.

Otherwise you might as well and sit there reading your fan fiction to them, using names that they came up with.

I would never want to be the sort of GM that thinks I have full rights to the game world we're playing in. I wouldn't want to play with one either, personally. Dungeon World is the greatest example of this, where you start a campaign/adventure/session by having players describe details about the world/situation.

That's what makes a game memorable, not "remember that time I had to act a certain way or risk being ostracized?" You don't hear a lot of stories that start like that and end on a positive note, unless its "and then I got the hell out of there and found a much more enjoyable group to play with!"

Now, maybe your group isn't as bad as that, but that's sure what you kind of make it sound like when you talk about people needing to conform to how you see the Star Wars universe.

Tough, basically. No-one is forced to play in my games and my players tell me I run some of the best games around. If I put a lot of work into creating a setting I enjoy, someone doesn't get to throw in things that would spoil it for me because their likes should override mine. I set rules. If someone were forced to play my game you might have a point. Instead, they are invited. What makes you think that their wishes should override mine? Especially when I've worked so hard on it?

Wow, that is some massive ego and entitlement.

Yay, insults. I haven't said anything about how you can have fun at your table, btw. But you're very happy to rain judgement down on me. Let's talk about "entitlement". I put orders of magnitude more effort into the game than my players. I write adventures, draw maps, stat NPCs, have to learn all the rules, preserve balance, be a neutral arbitrator in disputes. I even spend most of the money on it since I am the one that buys the rulebooks and supplements. You attack me for "entitlement". The thing about the "sense of entitlement" attack is that it's for when people think they're entitled to be given something for free. Getting something for your effort is not a sense of entitlement. And what I want for my effort is a game setting I enjoy. If players are willing to work with me on that, then we have a deal. If they're not, then they can do something else for fun and I'll get someone else to fill their seat and everyone is happy. A role-playing group is not an arranged marriage, we're all here voluntarily. You want to sit on judgement of how I play, I repeat - tough on you.

Which brings us on to ego. You're the one here pronouncing on how I should behave and applying your own expectations. I have tastes in what I would like to run and having such is not an over-inflated ego, it's just tastes. If I find Gungans annoying and don't want a player yelling "Meesa so clumsy. Meesa press the eject button now" whilst I'm trying to run an atmospheric espionage game, that too is my prerogative. Even if Sally would like to play a comedy Jar Jar Binks expy.

So short version, as I wrote above - tough. I offer what I offer, if people like the setting I create, they're quite welcome. If it's not to their tastes and I can't accommodate them, they don't play. To put it another way, if I invite a group of friends around to dinner, I'll try and cook something people will like but if someone calls me up and tells me I have to include caviar when I hate caviar, that's rude. There's your sense of "entitlement and ego". Someone who expects all this effort and money and creativity to put their tastes ahead of mine.

An entire group of people's idea of fun shouldn't have any impact of your singular idea of fun? This isn't about what you actually do or don't do, but the way you're talking about it is amazing to me. You didn't create the Star Wars setting. You are throwing your own ideas into the universe created by Lucas and other writers. But other people aren't entitled to have any input? Why is your fun the ultimate power in the universe? Why can't it be a collaborative experience? I'm not saying you should allow something completely ridiculous, but just flat out saying "If it doesn't fit perfectly, it needs to be expunged" is crazy.

See the above is all just hyperbole. I said that I wont allow Jedi unless I'm very convinced a player will play them in accord with my setting. The chances of me allowing it are against. From that you now tell me I'm guilty of my fun being the ultimate power in the universe, other people's fun is irrelevant to me, not having created Star Wars (so far as I can work out your criticism) and my favourite - the quote which I've bolded above. You need to check out what quote marks actually mean because I never said anything remotely like "if it doesn't fit perfectly it needs to be expunged".

Like, you may run a fine game, but what you're actually typing makes you seem like a GM from hell, and pretty bad at the actual craft. It comes off as if you're saying that the players need to be following your script rather than experiencing your story, despite the fact you should be thankful you have players.

I don't believe it does make me sound like a GM from Hell. If "my campaign is going to be non-Force users" makes me the GM from Hell, you have no conception of how bad a GM can be. And it's an interesting juxtaposition how you've accused me of "entitlement" but continuously take a position of players being entitled to my game being changed to suit them. I now find that the rationale for this is that I should be "thankful" I have players and therefore they're entitled. Whereas if you really want to bring "thanks" into it, you would normally direct thanks toward the party that put the most effort into something, wouldn't you? But I don't really think in terms of thanks or see the point - it's mutual benefit. I offer a game I like, they play in it if they like. Mutual gain. Though it is polite and nice when players thank me for running it, I admit.

a well-practice GM whose an arrogant dictator any day of the week.

Arrogant is more judging people like the above and all the other implications and out-right insults you've directed my way. I feel if anything, you should apologise for all the attacks and imprecations. Apparently, I'm arrogant, egotistical, have a sense of entitlement, implications I'm a dictator, think my fun is the ultimate power in the universe and not sufficiently thankful that I have players. Lovely.

it comes across as terrible. And when his response to criticism is "Tough."? That doesn't help the image.

The reason you got "tough" as part of my response is because I said how I play and your "criticism" was essentially that you don't like that and it doesn't suit your tastes. Well that, and a fairly judgemental tone introducing hyperbolic characterisations of what I said such as "do as I say or be ostracised" and you wouldn't want to play with such a GM. You don't get to launch in on an attack on someone out of nowhere like that and then dismiss them on the basis that their response says they don't care if you don't like it.

Tastes and style are a pretty individual thing. When someone suddenly appears and says they don't like yours, "tough" is a pretty valid response. Reasoned flaws require reasoned defences. An attack of someone not liking your tastes however, the correct counter argument actually is that this is the other person's problem. AKA, "tough".

But you're being disingenuous in saying my response was "tough". My response was actually a whole paragraph of explanation.

But if the players come up with an awesome (yet insane) plan that they're really excited about that completely bypasses chapter 3 of your game - well, chapter three gotta take the fall.

Otherwise you might as well and sit there reading your fan fiction to them, using names that they came up with.

Clearly I have become an avatar of the Evil GM God for some people. From wanting a game with a particular tone / excluding a few classes or races, I am now the embodiment of railroading and just want an audience for my fan fiction.

There's rather too much projection and summary judgement going on in this thread for my tastes.

I wasn't trying to paint you as a demon or anything - I was just saying that, wait . . . here:

"What makes you think that their wishes should override mine?"

I was saying that they shouldn't override your wishes just as much as you shouldn't override theirs. It's a communal, collaborative thing that both parties are trying to do. Any one party ramrodding their vision (be they player or GM) is wrong. All sides need to be on the same page.

Like I said, if that's what works for you - fantastic, and I meant that sincerely, not sarcastically. It's just that it would never work for my style of play.

I was saying that they shouldn't override your wishes just as much as you shouldn't override theirs. It's a communal, collaborative thing that both parties are trying to do. Any one party ramrodding their vision (be they player or GM) is wrong. All sides need to be on the same page.

Not to speak for knasserII, but I doubt there's any contention with that kind of broad vague statement. But I think you're talking about a different end of the give-and-take spectrum. For my games I'm also usually the host, so ultimately it's my house, my rules. I'll tolerate a bit of murder-hoboism, but not rampant repeated violence fantasies. If somebody wants to play a Jedi, I'll let them know that unrestrained Force slamming and lightsaber slashing won't last long. IOW, there are limits, and from what I can tell, knasserII is talking about limits, not the warm fuzzy middle.

I wasn't trying to paint you as a demon or anything - I was just saying

Well just to be clear why someone might take your post that way, you illustrated it with examples such as refusing to let the players have a plan because it might mess up chapter 3 of my adventure and took what I wrote as the basis to start talking about a GM just reading his or her fan-fiction to the players. Again, just saying. If you're going to start taking issue with the way I run, stick to what I wrote - I'm unlikely to allow Jedi - rather than building up your own pictures of how I GM. It's me you're replying to with such imagery.

I was saying that they shouldn't override your wishes just as much as you shouldn't override theirs.

Well that's lovely except that sometimes wishes clash. And not all wishes are best served by adding a little of both. Especially matters of tone. Some people like hard scientific explanations, others fantasy and mysticism. Mix the two badly and you get midichlorians. If that example doesn't work for you, young children want slapstick aliens, older children and adults want something more subtle or serious. Mix them together and you get "Meesa gonna be acting with Liam Neeson. Meesa have bombad acting credentials now".

Let's avoid all the hypotheticals that you and Inksplat are throwing at me and which have nothing to do with what I actually do at the table. I have said I'm unlikely to allow Jedi at my table. That's what has provoked these attacks. If I'm really convinced someone can pull that off without clashing with the style and atmosphere I want to establish, I might allow it. But that's unlikely to happen. So yes, in that case my wishes are going to override the players. And I'm fine with that.

Why am I fine with that? Several reasons. Firstly, I run a game because I enjoy it. Both you and Inksplat make arguments based on this premise that the group exists and must find some way to make everything work for everybody. That's a false premise. Might be true for you if your social life is set up that way. But here's how it works for me: I want to run a game about X. Here is Harry - he wants to play a game with Y. Therefore he doesn't play my game, instead Sally who likes X is invited and she plays. I am happy. Sally is happy. You and Inksplat keep condemning me for not doing the scenario where Harry turns up and I say okay, I don't like Y but I'll change my game for you. Now I'm not happy. And probably Sally's seat is filled because I only have finite players I can accommodate.

I like being happy. I like Sally to be happy. Harry can go off and find someone who likes playing Y and they can be happy. Everyone is happy. Except you both are insisting I should do something else where I'm not happy.

It's a communal, collaborative thing that both parties are trying to do. Any one party ramrodding their vision (be they player or GM) is wrong.

There is no such thing as wrong and right. These are just words for whether you like what I'm doing or not. To me "wrong" is running something that isn't what I want to run. No-one is forced to play. They're there because they enjoy it so all is good.

Let's go further into "wrong". I have a better vision for the game than the players. I not only do have greater authority as GM, but I should have greater authority. Gasp, shock, horror - the tyrant, the entitlement, the huge manatee. How can I say such a thing? Because I have a feel for where the story will go, what sort of NPCs they will meet, how worlds and skies and towering buildings will look and smell and feel against their fingertips. I know if they will land on a desolate planet scoured clean of men and women and children by an Imperial purge, or if they'll end up leading a battle force of drunken wookies to infiltrate the governor's mansion in a crazy madcap mashup of Life of Brian and Animal House. I know these things because before the players have even been invited I have thought about what I want to achieve with a game. I have greater power to set the tone and direction and it's not a power that can be given up because the fun of GM'ing is creating. Into this creation, assorted player characters turn up and start inserting themselves into the narrative. Rarely if ever do they co-ordinate to build a party and they don't know what my world will be unless I tell them. So the chances of needing some co-ordination from the GM to integrate them all is high. And when I do, if one creates something that clashes badly, then I do set value on my setting and am likely to tell them their character doesn't fit. Otherwise the setting and tone become muddled, or less internally consistent; and thus less intriguing, less compelling, less fun.

I have a vision when I GM. Not of how PCs will behave, but of setting and the atmosphere I will create. That's one of the things that makes me a good GM. Because in my game you'll feel horror or fun or whatever.

You know the last time I didn't restrict character choices? My Shadowrun game. I got a group of players who had realistic, serious shadowrunners and a 9' troll in a tutu. And you know what? Constant source of irritation to both myself and the other players all of whom wanted to play a fairly subtle game of espionage, assassinations and skirting the law. Oh, she had a bow and arrows, too.

Jedi? I've not yet actually encountered a Jedi character that didn't begin with "I'm a Jedi" as the basis of their character. That's not interesting. Not at all. If a character is interesting 9/10 times, it would be just as interesting if you swapped in a different career for Jedi. If that isn't true, then probably your character isn't interesting and you just want to be the special type of person.

Jedi don't fit my setting. Tough.

Like I said, if that's what works for you - fantastic, and I meant that sincerely, not sarcastically. It's just that it would never work for my style of play.

And that's fine by me. I've never once said any of you have to play the way it's done at my table. But in return you're posting comments about my style with words such as "ram-rodding" and let's be honest here - your posts are coming off pretty clear that you think I'm wrong even if you put in the occasional disclaimer that you're not judging.

What's really behind both your and Inksplat's posts, it seems to me, is this horror at the notion of one person setting themselves up as the authority. Well that's what I do - I wrote the game, I put in the effort, the time and the money and I offer it to people. If they reject it and say 'not good enough, it should be like X' so be it, I offer it to someone does like it. It's not my job to pleaseeveryone. In fact it's not a job at all - it's a hobby for me to enjoy. No authority is a real authority if you sign up voluntarily and can walk away at any time. Always this notion with you that the group is some a priori thing that I must please and that it's wrong for me to set myself up above. THERE IS NO GROUP. IT DOESN'T EXIST. What exists is my game and those I invite to it and have a choice to play if it looks like something they want to play in.

I think we're done here. I see little value in being told I'm "ramrodding" my vision down my players and other such things. Even in a post where you state the obligatory credentials of "I'm fine with it if it works for you", you can't leave off throwing loaded terminology and judgemental terms in one line later. "If it works for you..." is used generally much the same as the phrase "I'm not racist but..." It's almost always followed by reasons why the other person is wrong because deep down you think they are. But the speaker supposes that if they throw in such a phrase that somehow they're not actually judging.

All this because a GM wants to run a game without Jedi and doesn't run their game as a democracy. Or to be precise, because a GM is unapologetic about doing so.

Whatever, dude. Have fun with your game.

Now I'm wondering what constitutes a Jedi?

What would you consider a suitable introduction for such a character or better yet what difference should be present when involving either a Force Exile, a Force Emergent or any of the Force & Destiny new Force User Careers?

For example I ran a character who was intended to be Force Sensitive but had legitimate reasons to not want to become a Force User, another player ran a scoundrel who developed force powers managing to get training from a survivor of Order 66 before another player ran a game where he decided Luke fell to the darkside so we were trained by Yoda (I didn't get any choice in the matter, but he didn't get away with that the second time he tried that!).

Would you prefer the Exile and the Emergent over Force & Destiny or is this purely whether or not they can actually play that type of character?

I think there is a surprisingly large amount of hoopla over basically "Bring a character appropriate to my campaign to the table."

All this weird stuff about railroading and stuff has zero to do with that.

If I say "I'm going to run a game like the Wraith Squadron books where everyone plays pilot/commandos" and someone brought a character with 1 agi, no pilot skill, with Colonist/Scholar as their career/specialization, I don't think anyone would freak out if I said "No".

So if he doesn't feel Jedi fit at his table, that is his prerogative. And keep in mind, I'm one of the people in the thread who supports the idea of Jedi other than Luke/Obi/Yoda in the Rebellion era. I just feel that a GM has the right to determine the tone and what kinds of characters fit in his campaign.

Basically everyone is talking about this GM practice called "Managing Expectations". It's an important step in campaign planning where the players and the GMs talk about the game they are going to be playing and what will and will not fit. The players can and should be able to advocate interesting concepts, and the GM should at least listen and consider. The GM may have one philosophy and the player may have another. The important part of this step is to seeing if both philosophies are compatible.

If I say "I'm going to run a game like the Wraith Squadron books where everyone plays pilot/commandos" and someone brought a character with 1 agi, no pilot skill, with Colonist/Scholar as their career/specialization, I don't think anyone would freak out if I said "No".

Technically I suppose if they changed that to Diplomat/Quartermaster they could play Emtrey, but... man I don't think they would be able to play the majority of the game .

Ok, I strafe the encampment, Jill and Bobby are infiltrating the base during the distraction. What are you doing Josh? "I'm back at base requisitioning engine parts!"

That's part of everyone being on the same page, sitting down at the beginning and everyone hashing out what we want out of the game and what each person wants to bring to the game.

If someone said "Hey, I want to play a Politico" to a starfighter game, I would try and figure some way to make the concept work. "Well, what if your politico starts out ground-side support, is pressed into the air by necessity and finds that while they're not very good at it, they actually like flying?"

Then the first couple of games could be actually building the squadron, getting all the people and fighters and equipment assembled, putting the band back together and THEN lighting up the skies full time. That buys some time for the Politio to drop some points into Piloting and Astrogation and then (eventually down the road) a Fighter Jockey tree. Everyone gets what they wants, everyone is pulling the cart in the same direction.

Except that isn't how every game is run, and there is nothing wrong with it not being how the game is run.

If I say: "This is the style of game I am running from the get go, convince me what you are making fits, play something else, or find another game." isn't being a ****. Its running the game I want to run.

I think too many people operate from groups where they play with the same 4-5 other guys/gals every week, where making sure every player is on the same page for every game is important.

If you play with 9-10 different players, and different ones are in different games, saying "Hey, this is the game I'm running, if you are interested in that kind of game, take a seat" isn't a big deal. Everyone isn't always expected to play in every game. Hell, they couldn't.

Granted, my table is much more like the former, in which I do play with the same small group of friends every time, but even then, GM gets final word in what fits.

A group from my local area regularly records a Podcast called Fear The Boot that (typically) deals with general issues in roleplaying. They have an episode dedicated to managing expectations and adapting to player styles that sounds very relevant to this conversation. They're also fairly big proponents of the idea of a group template, and making sure that the party as a whole fits together.

While podcast isn't dedicated to any specific system or setting, they tend to deal with a lot of concepts and topics within roleplaying that are applicable just about every game.

I picked up a copy of New Dawn from the library this morning - I'm about a hundred pages into it, give or take. Now I don't know if it's a novelization of the first episode/story arc or something all new - it seems to be setting up Hera and Khannnn and their backstory. No sign of the kid, the Wook clone, the Pink Ranger or Chopper yet.

I don't know if the tone carries over to the TV show, but it's kind of dark and adult-ish and not very goofy and the stormtroopers aren't the stumbling boobs that we've see in the shorts. Also, interestingly we get a female Star Destroyer captain. Is Imperial Sexism a thing of the past in the new Disney Canon?

All in all, not bad (so far), not the best Wars book I've read, not the worse - but it gives me hope for the series..

A New Dawn is set 4-5 years before Rebels. The novel is rather serious in tone, and the Empire is competent but hampered by overly ambitious individuals acting at odds with one another to gain the favor of the a Emperor. Sexism it's not present, and female stormtroopers appear.

I liked the book and my kids seem to enjoy it.

Anyone who has completed it recall if New Dawn has any descriptive details concerning the inner deckplans of the Ghost? (a.i. "She bolted from the galley and flew up the access ladder to the dorsal airlock cursing at Chopper along the way.") I've just started reading it and have been working on updating a deckplan here. There are some holes I'm trying to fill in.

This novel barely talks about the Ghost at all. It's not going to be any real help as far as making deck plans goes.

A group from my local area regularly records a Podcast called Fear The Boot that (typically) deals with general issues in roleplaying. They have an episode dedicated to managing expectations and adapting to player styles that sounds very relevant to this conversation. They're also fairly big proponents of the idea of a group template, and making sure that the party as a whole fits together.

While podcast isn't dedicated to any specific system or setting, they tend to deal with a lot of concepts and topics within roleplaying that are applicable just about every game.

I just wanted to thank you for turning me on to Fear the Boot. The whole style and tone of the podcast suits my play style and interests PERFECTLY.

While in a mass forum such as this there's always a mix of folks who are interested in roleplay and folks who are interested in moving numbers around on a piece of paper so their numbers are better than other people's numbers, and the spectrum in between.

But I really respond to Fear the Boot's focus on story and roleplaying. I wish I'd known about this group years ago!

I just wanted to thank you for turning me on to Fear the Boot. The whole style and tone of the podcast suits my play style and interests PERFECTLY.

While in a mass forum such as this there's always a mix of folks who are interested in roleplay and folks who are interested in moving numbers around on a piece of paper so their numbers are better than other people's numbers, and the spectrum in between.

But I really respond to Fear the Boot's focus on story and roleplaying. I wish I'd known about this group years ago!

I'm glad to hear you've been enjoying them. I actually only recently discovered the podcast a few weeks ago through a business card left at my FLGS. (The Fantasy Shop in Florissant, Missouri.) I too wish I had discovered them before now, but I've enjoyed binge-listening to them at work.

I especially like that each episode is generally 30 minutes or so.

I do love Order 66's in-depth discussions at 3 hours+, but it generally takes me 3 days' worth of commutes to listen to one episode. With Fear the Boot, It's generally two episodes per day, and I can finish each episode completely in one sitting.