GAMEMASTER GROWTH, an RPG Channel for GMs ready to move "beyond the basics!" Are you ready to embark on a path of self-improvement as a GM? Are you already on the lifelong quest in the RPG hobby, to become more of kind of player or GM that we'd like to see? are there campaigns and adventures that you know are over the horizon...beyond your skills now...but not forever? This is the kind of RPG channel for you. I don't talk down to my viewers, because I am on that same quest...and I am still learning and making mistakes. I also don't over-simplify challenges, and I don't repeat the super-basic stuff, because I'm here to GIVE YOU CREDIT for what you've already learned, so that we can start working on what we want to LEARN NEXT. Like every YT channel, I'm all about building community and creating networks, sharing ideas. I want to learn from you, the viewer, as much as I want to share what I've learned. Because I'm all about GAMEMASTER GROWTH.
I was introduced two T2K 2nd Ed in 1998 by a friend. He ran his Twilight with a plot assertion: Germany won WWII (by a Russian betrayal). Plot advanced to 2009, where the PCs were American rebels with a list of 20 'Must Kills'. I played a supersoldier (godlike Acting, Polyglot, Espionage Mastery, pain absorption). Overall I felt it took four plots to do one operation, and I found it hard to restrict our blood-mad soldier crew. Not sure I would do that again; one of my players assured me as I was leaving, the GM wasn't joking about feeling Germany got cheated.
On Melee combat you said roll for successes and then you the person with the most momentum wins, do you mean the person with the most successes? Sorry I got confused.
So you apply your logic to the decisions made by different people in different governments in a different country. If it doesn't make sense to you, it just can't be? Does the entire world have to align to what you understand as possible? You also dont seem to understand mutually assured destruction. For the sake of survival, it behooves everyone to cripple the world instead of wiping it all out. The war was a gradual escalation, then an acute exchange of nuclear arms that fell just shy of total annihilation. The conflict is still there but no one is able to muster an effective war due to the utter breakdown of social and physical infrastructure. Of course its going to drag on for 4 years or more. This was an aggressive, territorial, and all out commitment to Soviet interests. This was a younger, more capable USSR. If you think this is all implausible, I want you to think about what would happen if Putin lets loose a tactical nuke, or two, or ten. The game changes VERY quickly and history takes a dramatic turn in a new direction. I sat through this whole video waiting for an actual reason why any of the T2000 timeline was implausible and all you gave was your limited knowledge and perspective on global affairs. Youve grown up in a different world and cant comprehend what the world may have become in the past. For all our sakes I hope current events dont reveal to you how unsafe you really are... then maybe youd have a taste for how close we still are to a scenario like T2000.
@@derekburge5294 I will offer some speculation in the full video, but in general my hypothesis about game manuals losing sight of being a game manual and being distracted by the appeal of a career as “nonfiction coffee table book™️” applies in spades
Thank you!!! Question about the game (not the TV shows): am confused by why phasers have a pênalty até close range. Also, the Power requirements: why phasers have Power requirements but torpedos dont? The game vocês an explanation?
@@gregoryfloriolli9031 tentatively, the sidebars from game-appropriate iconic character (with thumbnail portrait) are taking up a bit of that gulf. The in-universe stuff, where the book is trying to lift the same weight as the shows, instructing “the sort of adventures Star Trek people get into” is tuned a little tighter to the shipboard paramilitary frame, and is a little less generalistic pablum. Examples remain thin on the ground. The Klingon handbook remains the high water for this in my view
I was rewatching some of your older STA videos when I realised second edition was out. The PDF of the rulebook seems like a big improvement to me. Thank you for putting up your first look!
I hear you about the distributed information - but as someone who was always flicking backwards and forwards in the first edition book trying to find two halves of a rule or two related rules, other than the introduction, I think this edition does a better job of keeping related information together. I am excited about the new advancement and reputation rules, and I think the departure of challenge dice is welcome, but otherwise the rules seem very similar to the previous edition to my reading. Looking forward to your further thoughts!
@@andrewmarrington5654 overall the changes (to the rules proper, the information design remains shambolic) are done with consideration and for the better. In some places the “hit points” (stress, progress track, shields”) are left a little rudderless by the elimination of challenge dice, or the character of the action that is wrought upon the “hit point track” has changed to a point deserves more diligent call-out (because it’s far from what an intuitive reader would assume) Just the simple bits and bobs of how dice are bought, collected, how focuses work and so on, I was peeking in at the book for several minutes each day doing test forays as if I was a reader looking for a handbook-things were not good, as they weren’t in the prior. Key Information tucked away in sundry chapters without references, or embedded in a flowchart but never conveyed in the main prose praragrqphs
Noise gate seems to be a bit too high for your soft speaking tone in some sections, making the audio a bit choppy. It goes away when you speak a bit louder. Otherwise, pretty good! 😊
@@eloyc4245 yup This will probably not be the last time I forget that a noise gate is pretty unnecessary once there’s some good compression hitting the signal Next stream we’ll hobble thru getting a B camera running
@The_CGA subscribed and found them, I have been a Role player of numerous games since I was 9, I am currently 39. I could never get people to play Star Trek so I am going to try again possibly using Adventures as the platform. Keep up the work on the Channel!
Traveller is at least somewhat furry given that frequent artist and contributor Jennell Jaquays was friendly with many of the furry communities original creators, and had MANY furry friends (myself being one of them). That said I don't think it was intended to be furry. It just happens to have aspects of anthropomorphisation that people within the furry community would find agreeable to their inclinations.
The Wilderlands were an awesome setting for *exploration!* I ran a campaign in which the players simply sailed a captured pirate ship to explore the myriad islands and coastal points of interest on the maps. There has never been ANYTHING published to compare to that arcane, ruined world, with all the hints of an esoteric history hidden just beneath the surface. And there was plenty of room to add home-brewed content or published modules. Might be time to dust off those old maps... =^[.]^=
Well RU-vid sure is good at allowing us to necropost :) But considering all the angst for all things D&D recently, it needs to be mentioned, nothing all that great has been made for D&D for decades. Aside from the internet, which allows us to find and download cool stuff from the past. The Internet archive has links to most of the content from Judges Guild. It would be nice if the materials were cleaned up and sold more legit. But as long as you have a computer and the time and interest to clean up the pdfs with a graphics program. The City State and all things connected with it can be old school crude, but it's usually better than the shiny colourful crap being shilled by Hasbro.
I was just recommended this video, and I’m a huge fan of Judges Guild. As a 10 year old in ‘77, my friend and I collected everything they printed, as it was released. I’ve been playing campaigns in this setting for decades, and thoroughly enjoy the granular detail, and its vague descriptions of 100’s of locations, allowing me to flesh-out what the player’s show interest in. Their module Tegel Manor is the finest haunted house ever created. Great video!
This argument for or against random encounters just strikes me as asinine. "What is the purpose of random encounters?" It's to show the world exists, lives, and breathes beyond the PCs. "Nothing should happen outside the DM's control!" Go write a book. "Why should a DM bother?" Because it's fun. It's more surprise for everyone at the table. "But it's just more fighting!" Doesn't have to be. Talk, be tricky, offer trade.
Subtextual: I am poking at whether the [player] opinions are formed more as a reaction to negative experiences, which have come by way of the seeming default reading, that the first the characters hear about the encounter, is when they are caught with their pants down at the “encounter distance.” The “pre encounter” period, where there’s an escalation from afar, is implied in the text, but not explicitly instructed. My hypothesis, most GMs read the section and hear step 1, “a random encounter positive check,” and then railroad to step 2 “tell them of the encounter at this distance.” It’s not even a strictly *wrong* reading of the text, but a person would have to base their imagination on IRL outdoors knowledge rather than wargaming or video game thinking to realize the characters can see/hear it coming from much further off than “encounter distance.” This actually began when I read some bluesky rants about random encounters, a player perspective that it’s disrespectful and reckless to introduce encounters on the fly that one hasn’t considered deeply. Which, again: if you’re only concerned with the things the GM planned for and are sure to happen, you’re never pushing your luck, just poking at what’s already behind the curtain
An encounter check can be increased in frequency. When players are in dangerous places with many enemies. A greater amount of treasure players can discover. 1e AD&D had random encounter checks every hour. If this was changed to every 20 minutes. Another aspect in 1e was that each coin weighed 1/10th pound. Equipment was weighed in gold pieces. A high frequency of encounters will discourage players from staying there. The issue players may encounter is getting the haul out of the dungeon. That sweet loot may have them risk it, and stay longer due to greed. If the players leave to gather reinforcements. The entire location can be easily dismissed as abandon upon their return. This goes for any loot they manage to leave behind.
Yes The frequency can change, and can even change based on party activity. But the connecting space between a positive encounter and whatever beginning to “it’s an encounter” is entirely luminal. The decision space between a positive check and when the encounter comes face-to-face is Ill defined in any edition, and, subtextually, I’m implying that this “pre-encounter” time was lost altogether when combat on the grid became dominant. Not sure how GP weight connects here, it is definitely “a thing,” though I have argued elsewhere that speedy leveling and abundant powers innate to the characters in modern D&D have denuded loot of its value, players don’t care about it as they will become supermen before they’ll spend it or use items.
@@The_CGA 1e ad&d DMG had a steep gold cost to level. That was used in conjunction with the necessary experience points. If a player exceeded the required experience points to reach the next level. The gain of experience would cease, until the gold, experience, and time requirements were met. That ment the need for hauling every last copper piece out of a dungeon. The gold cost was so expensive that it could exceed the experience point requirements. That made the 1 experience point for 1 gold piece a bit of joke. It seemed it was all about the money, and experience points were there to punish players. That divided up the loot, or spent it on other things.
@josephpurdy8390 I am familiar with this rule, and have lived through many campaigns of it in HackMaster. I have mostly heard from gamers of the era that this was not a rule frequently applied, especially for those that began with BECMI or B/X D&D. As for gold pieces weighing 1/10 a pound, this can only really pass suspension of disbelief if it’s regarded as an abstraction, where “gold piece” is an abstraction for various jewelry and trinkets of value. In all historical eras, a suitcase of gold was literally a “king’s ransom,” tens of millions of dollars. I know it’s meant as a balancing factor, but I prefer to effect the same result by placing bulkier treasure and retain the realism that coins are actually a store of value.
@josephpurdy8390 I am familiar with this rule, and have lived through many campaigns of it in HackMaster. I have mostly heard from gamers of the era that this was not a rule frequently applied, especially for those that began with BECMI or B/X D&D. As for gold pieces weighing 1/10 a pound, this can only really pass suspension of disbelief if it’s regarded as an abstraction, where “gold piece” is an abstraction for various jewelry and trinkets of value. In all historical eras, a suitcase of gold was literally a “king’s ransom,” tens of millions of dollars. I know it’s meant as a balancing factor, but I prefer to effect the same result by placing bulkier treasure and retain the realism that coins are actually a store of value.
@@The_CGA A single gold piece weighted 45.3 grams that is equivalent to $3400 today. The British used a 1:15 gold to silver ratio. 1e AD&D used a 1:20. Either way not much thought was placed on the fundamental economic value of gold in that time period. The rulers wanted a reason to take that gold from you. It was valuable as an extremely durable commodity, and it was a means of limiting their liability to others. Its a rare material. Its scarcity made it attractive to plunder for the opportunity you could deny others from possessing. A childish game, but he who holds the most makes the rules.
There is a lot misunderstood with random encounters, even by people going back to older editions kinda miss an important part of them: they are only random for the players. The DM should have already created a number of encounters (I use 6, one for each period of the day, but 3-4 is good too) for that particular region the party is traveling through/adventuring in. So when you roll that encounter chance die and one happens, your already prepared with the specifics of the encounter (attitude, number of people/monsters, treasure, etc) beforehand. Good to see your back fella!
That’s certainly a worthy practice, and in my experience rolling the encounters ahead of time gives an opportunity to sketch out who and why the encounters are besides an entry out of the monster manual. One of the reasons I’ve seen that liminal space between “it’s an encounter” and “roll for initiative” get lost in the shuffle-is because the GM is busy rolling up the monster and putzing about in the manual and the players can’t interact with the “pre-encounter” because it literally doesn’t exist yet.
Good video, thanks. I had a good DM when I was first learning. During most of our encounters we had the options of fleeing, discourse, or combat. We rarely were forced into a fight, unless, of course, we failed a couple of surprise rolls. I try to run games this way as well.
You hit the nail on the head-it is all down to best practices and procedures adopted at the table. In my experience people have read, “an encounter this way cometh,” and then heard “the encounter begins such and such far way” and then surmise choices about what to do occur at that distance. It [“pants down” encounter distance] are not an overt instruction, but a procedure that, in the absence of mentoring, people “read into” the rules and then pass on. In the absence of familiarity with how things actually are in the outdoors, when most of one’s experience of “encounters” comes from video games with things like a Render distance, it’s understandable how folks arrived at that. Maybe that was another way to tell this story, but I wanted to leave things a little more open ended and avoid a “kids these days” approach
@@The_CGA As you may recall, earlier editions of the world's most famous roleplaying game had encounter distances in yards outdoors and reaction charts to roll on. Not so much these days with the video game feel of modern RPGs. Not that one couldn't bring those things back.
@@georgelaiacona111 I have encountered a lot 20somethjngs out in the wild that are surprised by the idea of literal doors 🚪 on rooms in the dungeon (as if everything was an archway). They regularly forget it’s dark in places there’s no lights on. Game manuals can help, but I think distance from base reality is a large component. In the olden days, I saw that gulf more from “wargaming mindset” rather than “”video game thinking,” but it still happened and was passed on to new players brought up at one of those tables.
Story is bunk. "In the world of tactical maps," speaks volumes. It's a mistake to limit oneself to predefined maps. The map in one's mind is more flexible. Also, you need to look closer at AD&D 1e rules. It defines outdoor encounter distances much longer than inside the dungeon. Plus has detailed evasion rules for both inside and outside the dungeon. And, the round sequence that includes a parlay step. Much was lost in 2e and even more in later editions.
What a boring person to be all bossy when it’s all about getting people to recognize how there are some tensions and contradictions in the culture of play and the procedures at the table and to miss the point altogether that I can’t change peoples minds being a big huge preacher and also that encounter distance for 1E is literally cited on screen. Why do I go to the effort of making things like this? Goodbye
They aren't I researched it If you have a page number I'll be happy to find something I may have overlooked. Since I already looked, I'll be interested to see which scant scrap in the 1E DMG you'll point me to
@@The_CGA Encounter distance outdoors DMG 1e p 49. Encounter distance in dungeon p.62. Parlay step p61 & 63. Avoiding encounters p.63. Encounter Reactions p.63. Note decent charisma, reactions, and parlay step quite frequently can result in encounters that don't result in combat. Gaining allies from a random encounter does the opposite of the resource depletion you mention. Once you gain an ally loyalty (p.36) is relevant. Evasion underground p.68 Evasion outdoors p. 69.
@@The_CGA Now combine this with the random terrain generation p.173. Now there is some DM judgment needed here on scaling terrain. But the same method can be used all the way down to a tactical level if you must use a gridded map and minis. The interface between random terrain generation and random encounters is a thing of beauty that lets the apophenia kick in and make sense of it all. It's where the real imagination in RPG sits. DM fiat should be minimized to allow the magic to happen. Not all fiat eliminated, but minimized. Also helps with the pesky notion of players accusing the DM of conspiring to kill characters. Nope, it was the dice and player decisions that did that.
I believe newer editions of D&D had rules for sighting encounters (random or otherwise) though it often falls into the chapter of "rules we don't use" because newer players (& GMs) do not consider the possibilities of player 'preparation' before the encounter comes head-on. One dimension to think about is the design of the random encounter tables itself; a lack of variety of different flavor of monsters to eat the party up in an Underdark table, doesn't necessarily encourage thinking about the potentials of random encounters that is nothing more than inevitable combat. Is the lack of diversity of creatures being encounters, a statement of what encounters should be expected from the environment, or a lack of creativity on the preparer (GM, module writer or otherwise) on the usage of random encounters? Perhaps a real missed opportunity to use random encounter tables is its worldbuilding potential, able to show the mundane and organic workings of the environment without exposition; meeting an Underdark trading caravan open for some barter trading of essential survival gears and a hidden monster has equal potential of showing what's life like in the Underdark, and perhaps even an unintentional guidance of how to survive in said environment or building of atmosphere/'immersion' (as 'in-character'). Random encounters also have a game prep utility in that it saves some (whether significant or not) time on game ideation and prep. When a GM is concerned whether they have enough material or set pieces to run within a group expected time frame of a session, a random encounter table can be a band-aid solution to this without the GM having to worry about what can be thrown on the party next after a previous encounter. In another way, inserting a potential encounter into a random encounter table also gives the possibility that a GM's overdone prep for the session didn't go to waste ('quantum ogres' not withstanding), leaving the eventuality of the players running into one of many encounters to chance, and not a forceful 'encounter' that could give off hints of railroad-iness. (In some schools of thought, the unfortunate meeting of an encounter that the party is not resourceful enough to survive is a representation of the lethality of the environment or game that the players are playing, acceptance and reaction to that notion varies by mileage). And there's the question of should random encounters be random at all, or determined by a roll of a dice that can be heard (if not seen) in the presence of all at the table (virtual or otherwise)? Or should GMs be rolling them in advance before the table arrives, so as to remove the inorganic feeling of how/why these encounters are encountered/providing an illusion of planning, or having an advance preparation to run said random encounters that may be more complex than the GM's anticipation or capability to run such an encounter (sometimes in some form of reading related rules before being blindsided on the table). And ever considered why random encounter tables seem to be an icon or tool used only in games involving dragons, and seems least or not used in other systems? All foods for thought for sure.
Regarding encounter tables in other games: I’ve seen them splashed about as utility elsewhere, I do use them myself for Traveller to generate the incidental traffic going about its business in wilderness star systems Ad&d 2E did sketch out in great detail creating tables with more than combat, including vignettes or environmental effects and “events.” And Gary In 1E seems very set on “ruins” being a large sub-table component of random encounter tables. These are what the manual speaks to..:but I can’t recall any example of folks actually doing this or products leading the way. Every so often when preparing tables myself I’d throw in things like “merchant” or “patrol of [friendly] soldiers” but this [and the reputation of random encounters among the people of the internet] is NOT congruent with application of tables in this manner. People are traumatized and assume “random encounter” = “random fight for your life” Regarding rules to spot: 3.x has rules where spot can be used at great distances-each 20ft of distance is -1 to spot; assume character is “taking 10” on their spot, this leaves a default distance of around 300ft (assuming the object to spot as TN 0) in unbroken terrain. Again this is inconsistent with my recollections of culture of play-the restriction of combat map’s size always determined the **actual** distance the party could take any meaningful action, including attempts to go to ground, parley, or flee
I used to run and play 2e back in the day, though I learned Basic, or Rules Cyclopedia first. With Basic, the dungeon was often the "safer" place to be. You could usually gage the difficulty level depending on the depth or reputation of the dungeon, but overland travel exposed the party to virtually anything, even casual encounters with dragons. With those rules, it wasn't the default assumption it was a fight. Even with surprise, there was the Reaction Chart, which indicated the other party's willingness to talk, fight, or cooperate. Players could try to hide, or monsters might even try to flee. Perhaps the "encounter" was just a sign that something was in the area. Players started out fragile. Discernment was part of the game.
In both the past and the present, These are all possibilities most of us were open to and sought-but like I spoke to, Instances are vanishingly rare or nonexistent where the encounter is foreseen from a meaningful distance (and thus a more open possibility space). You are 100% on regarding wilderness and my feelings-it could be a dragon, but is the dragon actually hungry for the party’s horseflesh or did they just cross paths or spot it on the wing? In any case-For every DM I’ve known and nearly all the times I’ve been the DM, the moment the players learn “an encounter cometh” is exactly at the moment to roll for initiative. Sure, we all think of parleying, we all consider if the encounter isn’t hostile (the “reaction table”). But we always considered those possibilities at the point we already were “caught with our pants down” at 60 ft distance, or whatever.
For me one of the major points that a GM must respect is neutrality. Which implies that due to its neutrality the characters are safe from anything, even death. This element of tension is the necessary separation between the players and the GM which consists of role-playing and the feeling of your character is not special . This is why I much prefer older games like Gurps, Hero System, Rolemaster and AD&D 2e than today's crappy narrative games.
The 2E AD&D monstrous compendium, or 1E in a pinch, will serve fine. The 8 volume hacklopedia felt necessary when I was 19 and first picked up HM, and it certainly is some of the best monster manuals made for any D&D game, but, na you should be fine.
This is a brilliant teaser for the setting and I do hope you'll come back and follow up with it someday. I'm planning a new Wilderlands campaign now using my 2005 boxed set in conjunction with Swords & Wizardry and possibly Michael Curtis' Stonehell dungeon and there is a serious dearth of good YT content out there. That's not to say I don't get it. BB Jr. sucking is common knowledge. He didn't create the Wilderlands, however, and I would argue doesn't deserve to define them for anyone now or ever.
Glad you enjoyed it-unfortunately for the moment the setting is currently the IP of an avowed antisemite, and while there was a “serial numbers filed off” version already created by a fan, he’s taken all of his stuff offline in protest/disgust so I don’t have a way to uplift the work of Bob Bledsaw (the original, cool guy author) without lining the pocketbook of the current owner who’s not subtle about where they spend their royalty checks. I had this video unlisted for a few years because of all that, but...I already went to the trouble before I knew all that. It’s kinda cold of me to deny folks the fun/benefit of the work that went into it. I respect folks cutting a different jib, no shade at Goodman games for their own personal choice to keep JG stuff in print. It’s definitely important to keep alive the memory that the Lake Geneva TSR coterie weren’t the only hands creating the first wave of RPG content.
Good to see you back in action. There's a whole series of videos waiting to be made on the subject of *Old Edition Practices That New Generations Could Benefit From Pondering (Instead of Decrying All Older Players as -Ist Grognards Before Engaging).*
Thanks. I am an old gamer, started playing D&D in 1979, our club is still active though we have lost a dear friend a few years back. I am launching my own Star trek Adventures game this coming Saturday, I have been acquiring books, dice, ships and miniatures, reading and making plans for over a year now. Your videos are helpful and I appreciate that. This new Star Trek Adventures game is very in-depth and I believe the game mechanic is brilliant, I look forward to seeing my guys in action. Thanks again.
I am very excited that you are bringing your perspective to classic D&D - I feel that trying to understand the early stages of the hobby has helped me improve as a GM personally, and I am looking forward to more of the wisdom you glean and share on this journey.
Idk what it is about the “book flip-through microgenre,” but for some reason I’ve only ever seen it played out on other channels as if the presenter’s brain turns caveman and suddenly he’s only capable of Tier-list level critical thinking. (Not that I’m too good for a tier list-)
Momentum should be flowing. If you're reserving it like a "too cool to use" resource, you're acting against genre. You should be spending it as often as you're banking it, in my opinion. Obtaining information and creating advantages as often as you see the opportunity to. Using successes to build up more successes. Even if it might mean giving the GM threat, you want to work to stack the deck in your favor when you can. This helps to build the story being told. Also, the big "reversal" moments may put the players on the back foot for the moment, but that's also the parts of the story that make things interesting. You were forced to retreat, but now you have the chance to rally and make a big Third Act surprise to really make for a memorable finale as you rebuild your momentum and pull off the impossible.
Edit: I mentioned “transhumanism” in the Ray Kerzweil sense of the word, people subliming (on a culture/worldwide level) into digital forms, transferring their consciousness into a jellyfish, etc. This sort of thing is eons away from reality, but in any case in the science fiction I’ve read, Iain Banks cultureverse, it comes off as a form of self-expression and self-modification, a liberty that is innate to personhood. Which is just about how I feel regarding Trans folks in the present day-you do you and become your (new) self. Within the realm of RPG legendaria, and creating a setting that’s accessible and easy to imagine and follow in the mind’s eye, (which is useful for accessibility and staying power of games and settings)…there can be such a thing as “too much of a good thing,” which is what I meant here. As a creative choice, it may behoove us as GMs to select settings with more in common with our present Human Condition
