Ranting, raving, and theorizing about all things Table Top Role-playing while burning rubber and gas.
You're just as likely to get a break down of how I use a particular rule as you are to hear a rant about the latest GM "controversy" from the Facebook debate mill.
We limit some of the unlimited storage by using rings of arming and outfit changing. Then we have backpacks that have lightly increased storage. bags of holding only exist in the wizards guild. But what we do have is miniature houses that we setup as our camp. That gives us a lot of storage, but limit access to it because we have to have time/space to setup our house. On the econ side we have long winded discussions on that subject ranging on the 3 major schools of thought, but you can only scream Austrian, Fabian, Chicago so many times before we have to just come up with a fairly standard conversion between fiat notes, coins, and goods. And have a agreement that that 15 person village is probably not going to have change for 1 gold, let alone a platinum. And you have to leave them with things for winter.
I wrote a campaign a while back, where the party slayed the dragon that had been terrorizing an entire region for generations. Wealth beyond measure was all theirs, unless they wanted to do the right thing and repair the damage done by the dragon. The problem was that they would be pumping hundreds of years of wealth, some of it from cities and towns that had long since ceased to exist, back into a much smaller economy. The party had worked their tails off to reach and defeat the dragon, losing two party members in the process. In the end, they hired three wagons, one for each local settlement, and loaded them with treasure for the people there. They distributed the wealth the best they could, and then went on the REAL quest - finding a good dragon to claim the bulk of the treasure and keep it from destabilizing the region.
A good compromise for loot people want is to have an empty slot on the treasure table for what somebody wants so they can feel like they have a chance to get it. You can even balance it out with lowering the value of other items to match the value of the wanted treasure.
@@bigblue344 I don't think I would ever let a player even see a loot table to know what's on the list. Though to be fair, loot is very rarely random at my table
@@drivinganddragons1818 I wouldn't let them see the loot table either. Just as an example I would let them know they have a free slot to pick what kind of treasure they want out of 9 other slots, and if they choose something really expensive then let them know the value of the other possible treasures to get would be lowered.
This is something I never really put thought into. Most towns had a trade goods store for basic supplies. The smiths might have weapons you're looking for. There might be an alchemist or apothecary that makes remedies and salves. Except for a few adventure books that said so, I didn't have any magic item shop. The armors and weapons didn't magically resize and they couldn't just pawn it for the book price. I never thought of a flooded market or inflation.
@@sketchasaurrex4087 like I said, you don't even have to go that deep into understanding things or explaining why, just a little common sense tells you that there won't be a Ferrari dealer or a Tiffany Jewelers in that population 200 desert town in middle of nowhere Utah.
@drivinganddragons1818 ya, I was echoing your commentary on it. I never really thought about it but did a lot of what you talked about. The influx of coins altering the small town's economic pricing and goods is something I never put into the game but I'm definitely going to outline some ideas to make use of this thought.
Don't agree with fudging dice. By doing that you're robbing the players of agency because they're avoiding consequences of decisions they made. That takes all the fun out of the game. Doing something heroic when you know the GM of fudge the dice so you could do it really robs it of its value. Epic deaths including tpk's are part of the fun.
I agree... But you should check out my "you're doing it wrong" video on dice fudging. Dice fudging isn't there to radically alter outcomes nor is it there to cheat the players in either direction. It's just another tool to smooth out the edges and fill in the gaps that exist when we dial thousands of variables down to a roll of a die, be it a D20, d10, or d100. I think you'll enjoy that one.
I have a player who pushes the boundaries in every encounter. Guy gets full credit for keeping his head in the game, but he’s the kind of guy who was allowed a few RoC moments early on, and now wants every round of every combat to be some convoluted, multi-step, rule bending tribute to his ability to “think outside the box”. I generally applaud creative, unorthodox solutions to problems, but guys who power game based on earlier RoC decisions have turned me off to any kind of consequential outcomes arising from RoC.
@@michaelcrumlett187 I should have said it in the video but completely missed the ball: a GM MUST learn to say "no" comfortably and easily before any RoC is allowed to happen. Maybe ask what happened to give his cglharacter that idea.
@@drivinganddragons1818 it was a West Marches style game. I got him after he formed his bad habits. I took him aside and explained it. He’s a good guy. Vet. He got it and toned things down, but got back to shenanigans with the next guy in the barrel.
I'm pretty much a forever DM and the few other DM's I played with whenever I tried to do something clever or cool there was always some workaround or reason why it failed right away because they genuinely didn't know how to handle it or it would have trivialized a scenario, it wasn't even game breaking and was just using my environment to my advantage. Meanwhile for role play sections they were always open to "rule of cool" dictating the direction of where the scene would go to even absurd lengths. Makes me wonder why staying on rails is so important for combat and exploration yet are completely fine with letting the most over the top things happen when it comes to downtime.
We were sky pirates. I was playing a large size half dragon fighter. I would leap from our ship to board other ships. This sometimes really hurt my character because of the distance and drop. One time I wanted to try to leap onto the opposing ship's captain. He had me roll a jump check, nat 20. He had me roll to confirm, 19 on the die. He narrated how the falling damage I usually took was taken by the captain as my character's landing planted him into the boards of the ship. He allowed me a swift action which I used my breath weapon to finish off the crushed captain.
Not a bad use of RoC. Funny enough, 20 years ago I ran a Skypirate campaign and Capt Corealin Pict began a legend at our table due to a series of comical actions backed up with a couple of good rolls on Rule of Cool stunts.
Pretty much my sentiments too! I think for those special incidents where the RoC is applicable 'a little goes a long way'. The trick is, imo, to use it when the players do something really innovative or especially clever. I think RPGs should be rewarding clever play even if it stretches the rules a little. As long as it's not ludicrous or too often I think it just adds to the drama and overall fun. But as you say, you don't want it too be seen as something that the players should expect or begin to rely on.
Exactly. I cut a segment that I just didn't think flowed when I listened back, but basically I said that RoC is kinda like a nickname. The cool nicknames that stick arise from everything just fitting a specific set of circumstances and the only thing that is more lame than trying to recreate or force those circumstances is when you have that guy who runs around insisting that everybody call him something like "T-Bone" or "Diesel". Those guys should get nicknames like "wang face" and players who try to manufacture Rule of Cool should be rewarded with Award of Darwin.
I've recently been adding them. Gave my players chills and dread with vague but foreboding dreams. One has come up, partially. The other two have had little hints to add to the meaning of their bad dreams but they haven't seen enough to realize it yet. Was asked about one of the dreams and told them it will come to pass, eventually. 😈
Something I do after I end a session and they have their long rest period ... I will use their dreams in order for clerics and Warlock to interact with their Patron or deity and we will do it as a side chat in order to obtain information and other lore so that next session they have access to a bunch of fresh lore they can then weave into their role play in the next game
Dream sequences border on cutscenes and character possession. They can be roleplayed without players losing any agency. It all depends on how the GM handles not speaking in the second person.
@@drivinganddragons1818 Most of the time, the GM talks in 2nd-person. They are roleplaying the PCs for the players. GMs do this for most of the game session as well.
@@SHONNER I would disagree. 2nd person is the appropriate perspective in modern English to relay sensory information to another person, such as, "you see four figures in the darkness" or "you feel a hot wind brush across your skin". It's also appropriate when delivering results such as, "your axe bites into the creature's shoulder, crushing bone" or "as you step out on the ledge, you lose your footing and fall". The only place it would be even mildly inappropriate would be if you take active control of the character such as telling them "you walk into the room" when they did not tell you that they were entering the room.
@@drivinganddragons1818 GMs can describe things without saying "you." Without telling the players what their characters see, hear, smell, taste, feel, think, say, do. Most GMs do not though. They prefer to roleplay the PCs for the players. The players are just there to roll dice when needed. They are the RNG for the GM who is playing a solo RPG in front of his/her friends and doesn't want to roll dice. The GM's friends get to roll dice so it doesn't seem so boring for them while listening to him/her tell them a story about their characters. That is how 99% of games are run. The 99%ers in the hobby. But you know this already.
I don't see this the way you do. There's a wide gulf between the two extremes here. Speaking in 3rd person is just atypical communication that doesn't actually change anything. The sentences mean the same thing. Having players describe things for which they have insufficient information is not good RP, it's just uneccessarily cumbersome. "there are cakes on the table" "I eat a cake, savoring the sweetness and licking the honey from my fingers" "... They're Johnny Cakes for travel. Like a cornbread pancake. Not sweet at all. They're also cheaply made with limited rations, so I guess you're savoring the grainy, sandlike dryness of hard tack."
No comments? Man, you must've knocked it out of the park. Related, but not exactly the same topic: my favorite way to keep game night running when we lose a player or two for a night is an "interlude." It doesn't quite have the benefits of immersion that a dream sequence does, but I run a one shot relevant to the story or the world that lets the players get outside the usual POV of their PCs. Think something like the chapters or sections of the Dragonlance novels that are told from the perspective of one of the dragons or Verminaard. Might be a good follow up, and I'd love to hear how you'd do this.
@@JohnSmith-jv7mv that would be one is need some thought on. I've never actually used that particular device but I can see where it would be useful and somewhat how I'd use it
Great video. I roll as many rolls in my game in public. This is always Initiative, To Hit, Damage, and who the targeted PC is (unless there is a RP reason for it). My secret rolls are for things the PCs would not be aware of: NPC / Mob saving throws; PC move silently or hide in shadows (yes I roll those, not the player); finding secret doors or traps; Random Encounters; etc The only rolls that I fudge are random encounter rolls, especially if I don’t feel the encounters creature makes sense. I also fudge the number appearing or rather I just set that to what I feel will be a challenge. I don’t roll monster hit points, I use a base 6 HP x HD. A 1/2 HD creature will have 3 HP. Over all I try my best to limit dice rolling when it suits the situation.
thanks for the shout-out. There is no definition because the OSR is a glob based on perception. TSR D&D and all its retro-clones are OSR Games that are no longer in print that have been revived due to retro clones and the OGL And what is old school style of game
@@drivinganddragons1818plenty if other games were made using the ogl like mutants and masterminds and several old non existent games were able to see a reboot thanks to it like fringworthy
@@drivinganddragons1818 yes but my point was that thanks to this system some dead agmes were able to come back (Frinfworth) And thus fit into my definition of OSR
I started playing late in the Gygaxian era (1982), and played through the Hickman Revolution. Stopped in 1991 because my group broke up after high school. Started again four years ago because my boys wanted to play, and I’ve been playing 5e happily since then. I’d like to play more from the Hickman years; my best memories of playing came from then. I did purchase the OSE books, and I’ve had my eye on some AD&D and 2e stuff (EXPENSIVE), but I haven’t been able to find people for the experience I want yet - in person, on paper, hand drawn maps, and focus on the the game instead of all the things surrounding it. Maybe someday I’ll find a local group of old farts like me and we’ll get our THAC0 on.
Ordinary System Rules. 1st-gen RPGs. Boardgames of the mind. Zero roleplay at the table. Players are playing the map, or they are playing their character sheet. 8-bit Rogue games brought OSR to the personal computer 40+ years ago.
this is one of the reasons im thinking about making my magic items sold by specialized wizards who take requests/commissions for what items the customers want, rather than a store full of extremely dangerous/expensive items sitting on shelves. of course the problem isnt solved by just this, its a deeper issue, but this is a good first step i believe.
The best think is to tie any magic item deals to a quest or job and to be very strict about the required materials for them. Not just "Oh this wizard can make it" but "the wizard will make it after you complete his task, plus he needs a leather belt, silver dust, and a fist sized pearl." This also makes those "less optimal" item creation feats a real choice.
Another major issue with people trying to "balance" is taking something that worked before and thinking it will work again in a different mechanical environment. Like how wizards are balanced because they are squishy and how old spell slots used to work, but compared to today spell slots are just universal ammo for the type of spell you want and being squishy doesn't mean much anymore.
@@DiscoBarbarian certainly a valid approach. It's like anything else, the extremes are generally bad and best result is something of a balance. Too little gives nothing to play off of and can reduce player investment and emersion. Too much can land lock the character's development and can also lead to and unsatisfied player who has defacto main character syndrome.
I'm working through your backlog as the videos get recommended and finding more quality stuff. XP to Level 3 is one I've never watched a full video of. Any time I've tried I always ended up cringing so hard I closed the video right away, or they rambled on and took so long to get to the point that I skipped through the video and gave up on trying to find any quality content in them. Regardless, the only 1 attack in six seconds thing. Did they not read in the players handbook how a single attack roll represents your characters attempts over the course of the round to offend an enemy? In relation to that, in your rapier fencing video, I saw several feints and movements of people looking for an opening over the course of the course of the 30 seconds you showed. That looks like two people fighting defensively to me as they know the first hit scores the point and wins the match. Then, suddenly one guy decides to attack all out and fails their roll followed by their opponent exploiting the dropped defense. Basically, that was several rounds of attack rolls that didn't hit followed by one that did. I do have a small disagreement with you as far as how powerful a level 1 character is in 3.5. I don't think level 1 characters are quite Olympic level *skill* just yet, but I 100% agree with their *ability scores* being at that level or above at level 1. Basically the potential is there, they just lack the training and experience to fully use it.
@@CowCommando on combat, your analysis is very valid and is a perfectly rational way to make a description out of the abstract that is ttrpg combat. I'd counter your position by saying those feints were not attacks as none of them were presented in a manner that could have been a successful attack. However, you could easily argue that they used their action not to attack, but to feint, which if successful would take away their dex to AC. As for the bottom, take this as a slightly less that apples to apples comparison. A timber wolf in 3.5e has a +2 grapple and can trip as a free action on a hit. An average 1st level Human monk has a +4 to grapple (if grappling is their focus via bonus feat) and can also engage for free without provoking an attack. What caliber judoka or grappler does it take to effectively out wrestle a timber wolf? Or compete with a black bear (grapple +6)?
@@drivinganddragons1818 That's fair about grappling, but really only because of racial adjustments to ability scores and the monk getting the prerequisite bonus feat for improved grapple that an equivalent level warrior can't get until level 3. At level 3 (for both characters), the difference in BAB and letting the NPC have access to the same feats actually has narrowed the gap to the warrior having a 1 point lead before looking at STR. At that point, the guard is just as skilled and only raw strength will allow the monk any advantage. Would you say a level 3 guard is an olympic level guard? I can see it going either way actually. Depending on how common goblins and bandits are in the area, I see level 3 guards as being potentially common. Are fighters Olympic level fencers then? The only difference between their ability to land a hit and a level 1 warrior (assuming weapon focus for both which they can both get) is the STR bonus. Are level 1 warriors just Olympic level fencers who skipped leg day? No, they're described in the DMG as anyone who has learned to defend themselves. Career soldiers are even suggested to have levels in fighter. Surely not every career soldier is an Olympic level fencer, but they have the fighter class same as a PC (just not the max hp at level 1 and ability scores). If you look at skill modifiers the difference usually becomes entirely based on ability scores unless the PC gets relevant bonus feats that an NPC can't get or can't get as quickly. A cleric who didn't take the skill focus knowledge(religion) feat at level 1 likely knows *less* about religion than a level 1 expert who did because the cleric's INT bonus is probably less than the +3 from the feat assuming they both have 4 ranks in the skill. The DMG describes the typical blacksmith as being a third level commoner. Granted, it also says that 2nd and 3rd level is where most NPC's cap out in level due to not going on adventures and therefore getting less XP. Let's assume your typical blacksmith is level 3 and has max ranks in craft(blacksmithing) without any feats. That's a +6. A level 1 character with max ranks in the skill has a +6 _only_ if they have _at least_ a 14 in INT, and only then are they the _equal_ of a typical blacksmith. That's maybe an olympic level intellect, but not an olympic level of skill yet. By level 3 through, the PC can match the skill ranks (and feats) and now their ability score gives them an edge over the common blacksmith now that they have _equivalent experience._ I think experience is the key here. I would say that level 1 PC's have Olympic level (and above) _potential_ due to ability scores alone, but they're going to need some real experience to actually get to that point. That said, they'll be at olympic level of skill by level 6 at the latest, possibly as early as level 3. By levels 8 to 10 they're easily the greatest on the planet in generations. By 10 to 12 they're probably the greatest *ever* at their chosen field, and it just goes all the way up to literally rivaling deities from there. I'm _not_ saying they're not crazy powerful compared to normal people at level 1. I just don't think they start quite that high up the scale.
@@CowCommando keep in mind, Olympic is still amateur in most cases. That said, the monk has the experience (shown in the bonus feat) and I gave no strength modifier where a level one monk should realistically have a well above average strength score. I assumed 10-11 down the line as a human base where as as best 3 of 4d6 character would almost certainly land a 14 or better in their primary stat. I also only assumed improved grapple and didn't assume an additional grappling feat at first level nor a third grappling related feat as a human bonus feat. A level 1 monk could theoretically have three enhancements to grappling related abilities and would smoke any rationally designed warrior. After all, the guard will most likely not even have the requisite stats to take those feats in the first place and would more realistically have feats like alertness. It's certainly not a perfect analogy, but the point is from 3.5e onward, D&D is more superhero fantasy than pure fantasy in terms of design. From the jump a PC is substantially beyond the average person, which as I recall from the DMG was 95% level 1 commoners, nobles, artisans, and adepts. This makes a level 1 character bare minimum top 5% in the world and realistically top 1%. This is opposed to AD&D where a level 1 character was basically the military equivalent of sergeant. Couple tours of combat experience and ready to strike out on his own.
As per 34 and the concept of power gaming. I've found that nearly every instance of power gaming I've come across (admittedly a small amount) is due to one of three things: a generously loose interpretation of the rules, a misunderstanding of the rules, or a misapplication of the rules, intentional or accidental. Yes, I've seen some really powerful official abilities RAW, but they're usually limited in number of uses per day or in the circumstances in which they can be applied. The instances of power gaming I've seen (almost) all have been easily solved to my and the player's satisfaction by simply laying out how the rules are actually going to apply in this situation which removes the over powered bit and just leaves them appropriately powerful. Frequently, the player is so happy that I'm letting them do their cool thing that they're just fine with the limits that I apply to that thing. On the few occasions that I've had to say no outright, I was able to help them find alternate ways of getting close to what they wanted anyway. They were usually trying to find a way of having their character be good at a particular thing rather than looking for a game breaking combo, so they're happy to be able to do that thing in a non-broken way. Some players I've allowed to keep the OP ability because, after we've discussed it, they've agreed to use it sparingly so as to not ruin the experience of myself and the other players, and they're a player I can trust to hold to that. I've also intentionally given players brokenly OP applications of rules to help them and others have more fun at the table. Story in the reply for anyone curious.
I'm guessing you aren't a 3.5e player. The crunchier the system, the more exploitable by power gamers. Where does power gaming come from? MMORPGs and other video games. There's on GM discretion or rule zero, just math built into the programming and if you know that may, you can stack your side of the equation. In ttrpgs, the more situations where there is a rule to resolve the situation as opposed to a need for a ruling from the GM, the more easily a power gamer can exploit the system. In 3.5e (and other super crunchy games) where there are rules for everything, you see RAW allow for things like PunPun, The Wish & The Word, or DMM Persistent Clerics.
I don't know about 44 rules, some of these are repeats. But I think a less harshly worded and modified version of these rules could work. There'd be some that would get chucked or just merged with other ones but I don't see anything wrong with having some basic rules for your table. Professor DungeonMaster has The 10 Commandments of RPG and also the GM Rules. Which I'd also modify lol
I think most of the hate comes from crybaby modern players who get offended by any expectations placed on players and the ranting nature of them. And yes, several are redundant.
@@drivinganddragons1818 I've seen a lot of backlash on the GM , who wasn't even aware of this until recently, but there have been others who noticed that it's actually the players that are the issue. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Apparently the OP got an apology gift for the GM. But players and GMs getting along doesn't get the clicks! One Shot Questers covered these rules in a stream and then made an update the following day. Apparently one of the players reached out. Unfortunately that stream had to be taken down because a name got revealed by accident so Duke quickly deleted it to respect the person's identity. I'm not sure if an edited version was posted.
@@TheOGGMsAdventures I read somewhere that someone was claiming it was posted in bad faith, eg it's fake and just to get clicks, by the players of a frustrated GM. The players made it look as bad as possible on purpose to shame the GM. Regardless, this is the internet and the truth is going to be somewhere between 20% if I'm being generous and -150% of what was posted. (The negative percentage is crap made up to obfuscate the actual truth.)
I've never understood the idea of having a super detailed backstory that I get heavily invested into as a player for a character that could drop dead during the first session. I'd much rather throw together a few interesting details and call it a day. It's less work for me. It's still plenty of hooks for the DM to pull on, imo, and it's not much work to redo if my character gets crit by a greataxe wielding mountain giant random encounter and one-shot.
@@drivinganddragons1818 I think the lack of stakes is one of my core dislikes about 5E. It's definitely the thing that makes me chuckle whenever I hear about a 5E "narrative campaign." Stories that are effectively guaranteed to succeed are just as boring to me as those that are doomed to fail. There's no tension, so why should I care?
I guess this comment fits better in the previous video, but whatever, I'm assuming every comment helps. Your gnome hating dwarf reminded me of another one of Seth Skorkowsky's skits. It's one with two versions. One where the players wait for the GM to make their backstory relevant and one where the players use their backstories to shape their characters' moment to moment actions instead. I mean, writing a good backstory as a player and then having the DM work it into the game works best when players make use of those elements all the time, and it allows the players to use the backstory elements that the DM doesn't work into major events. Putting the onus on the player to make use of their backstory saved me from a terrible evening. I'll put the story in a reply so it doesn't clutter up this comment. Maybe you could talk about using your backstory as a player as an addition to the last two videos. I'm sticking around whether you do or don't. I just thought it would fit thematically with the recent topics.
Here's the story: I was invited to a New Year's Eve party where the main entertainment was to be a 5E module that came with level 1 premade characters. The host was DMing, and it was his first time running a game. The party attendees would all be playing. When I showed up the players were his daughter who was playing D&D for the first time, my brother who is experienced but doesn't like to take center stage (this will be relevant later), and me. Everyone else bailed on the event. I realized very quickly that we were in for a rough night as the new DM was having trouble keeping us engaged. Every player was soon staring at their character sheet unless they were directly interacting with the DM. I had just enough experience as a DM myself to know that we needed something, a hook of some kind, to rally around to get people invested in what was happening in the game. I need something to prime the pump of my creativity, so I started skimming the provided character sheet for anything I could use to get me started. I discovered that the character sheet had a filled in backstory, and the character I was playing was looking for a fabled golden pyramid. That's when I remembered Seth's skit about how it was my job to play my backstory instead of waiting for the DM to play it for me. This pyramid had nothing to do with the provided module, but I started acting like everything was either a clue or an obstacle on my characters _grand quest._ I was asking every NPC if they had heard of the pyramid. I offered the orcs a chance to escape from combat if they would give me clues to its location. I had my character ask the other characters if anything they found when searching rooms looked like it could be a book or map that would hold clues to the whereabouts of the pyramid. When my HP were low in a trap filled room and the other players suggested caution, I vowed to never give up until my search was complete and pushed on. It was just stupid little stuff that I could insert into the game any time things were slowing down to keep my engagement up and to try to keep people's attention focused on what was happening. Once my brother got over his initial confusion at my sudden transformation from bored generic fighter to questing hero, he had his character start helping in my character's search for clues or quipping that my character would never make it when I flubbed my skill checks. That allowed us to get some in-character banter going when the DM was looking stuff up that helped us to keep engaged and keep the energy level at the table up. We never did manage to fully get the daughter's attention away from her phone. I'm not saying I single handedly saved the session or anything like that, but I did save _my_ evening and kept my brother from dying of boredom. I had a lot more fun as a character who was laser focused on his quest for the golden pyramid than I had been as "generic fighter with great axe" when I first sat down. Either way my character was going to be wandering around a dungeon getting wrecked by traps and bonking orcs, so at least I got to have some fun with it regardless. Having written it out, I suppose this story is only tangentially about using your backstory. It's more about making sure as a player that you engage with the game instead of waiting for the DM to engage you. Eh, worth it. "Take responsibility for yourself," is an important lesson to learn in general not just for enjoying D&D, so I don't mind putting out a story to support that. If more people took responsibility for their own entertainment and followed the basic social rule of "Don't be a dick" which solves so many other problems people seem to be having, there'd be less crappy D&D advice channels out there because there wouldn't be an audience for them. That'd make it a lot easier to find content with actual quality and useful advice.
@@CowCommando those last two paragraphs certainly hit the bullseye. It certainly does sound a lot like Seth... Mainly because there really isn't that much to being good at TTRPGs. The dark and horrible secret of the hobby is that there really isn't that much you need to do to have a good time, it's not that complicated so the good advice that's there just gets rehashed in different ways, or in this case, we look at the same concept but from a GM perspective instead of a player perspective. I seem to recall a quote that was something to the effect of "if the players ever realize that they don't need character sheets, books, or dice to play the game, the business will really be in trouble".
Good video and good timing. I’m starting a new campaign with three people I’ve played with before and two newbies. I’ve been looking for a way to get everybody on the same page with backstories, and I think that a loose template and a thumbnail sketch of the campaign beforehand might make life easier for everybody.
@@displayter.2095 that's the million dollar question isn't it. Honestly, that's going to vary alot from table to table and campaign to campaign but generally you can reveal a lot more than you think without ruining the surprise. Its like the "players aren't as smart as you think" principle when it comes to traps and puzzles. It seems more obvious to you because you know all the twists already, but to them it's not obvious until it's too late.
I guess I'm weird. I've not had the tragic parents were murdered backstory. I'm not the child of prophecy. I didn't pull the sword from the stone. I'm usually following in the footsteps of the father who's retired after being a soldier or adventurer or priesthood. The call to adventure is usually actually seeing a dragon or some grand magical beast for the first time, or some adventurers saved the town from an orc raid & my character managed to fight one off (not even slay it, just lucky enough to defend against the orc), or 1 of the adventurers say he shows great potential & push him to explore the world himself. I think level 1 characters should have 3-5 short sentences & that's it. Just a simple starting point for the reason they are risking themselves instead of being the commoner/npc.
I think joke characters can work in a serious game if the player knows when and where to be funny and how much funny to do. They just can't be gimmick one trick cardboard cutouts of a character who thinks being annoying or random is funny just to stand out in a somber game.
There's always an exception to the rule, but in general a comic relief character, and especially a joke character (not the same), wear thin pretty quick in games with a serious tone. The heavier the subject matter and more somber the tone, the quicker the shtick gets old and the smaller the bullseye to land jokes in gets.
@@drivinganddragons1818 Dandelion is a perfect example of this in the Witcher Stories. He's funny, he's the joke to Wither's straight man. It amplifies the Serious characters when done properly... it also means something serious in the story when the joker stops joking. it can also be used to show a character that is a nervous nelly... or naive... or so jaded that they joke about dark things. but this is on the player... and if they need guidance to reel it in some... that's on the GM.
@@DiscoBarbarian true, but there's a big difference between a jokester character that provides relief, like Siben the bard in Drenai or Dandelion in Witcher, and Richard Johnson-Private Dick or the elven druid Lichen Peckerwood.
Well, too late for this go around, but next time you have a stuck stud, take a moment and hit it with a blow torch. Rust doesn't conduct heat very well, so the differential expansion rates between the stud and the engine block will usually break it loose from the corrosion holding it in place. You may even get a nice, satisfying PING as it breaks free. If it gets too hot, let it cool down and hit it with some penetrating oil (if you've got a buddy that does weld inspection, ask for some Dye Penetrant.) Let it cool, clean it up so the oil doesn't catch fire, then heat it again. Usually the first cycle is enough to do the trick, but I've seen some older stuff (like from the 1940s) take two or three heat cycles. Much faster than re-tapping a hole and if you have wait time, you can crack open a beverage of choice and take the time to enjoy it. Either way, you're a winner.
Top tier advice, The only thing I would add is you can now buy induction heating tools for this specific scenario. Can work by fuel lines etc without much stress
Blow torch is usually my second option the moment they don't want to budge. I'm going to SAY that's because once you have to extract one sheared off stud, you've done it enough... but the real reason is I love excuses to play with a blow torch.
@@drivinganddragons1818 i do not care about your backstory, i care about the story going forward. If you wrote 99 pages already, ill give the email of a publisher
Lol and that would be a fair response. I used to tell people "write all the backstory you want, but I'm only reading 2 pages and that's all that will every be referenced or used in game."
I have this problem in my 20+ year long 3.5 campaign. But my character has a 47 charisma and gets a lot of his AC from being talkie. You are 100% correct on people confusing the current world for what ever they are playing. I would argue its even somewhat worse in playing 80's themed cyberpunk games. Their worlds specifically can't function with a surveillance state like we currently have.
Her video reminds me of a D&D horror story I heard roughly a decade ago. Side note, I take all online stories with a massive grain of salt. Anyway, the story went that the setting was a traditional European medieval setting. In the first session one of the players found out that the particular country they were adventuring for and in had outlawed same gender couples. The punishment for breaking this law was death. One of the players was so aghast that they convinced the rest of the players to, reluctantly, have the whole party spend all of their time trying to change the laws of the kingdom instead of going on adventures. They even abandoned their opener quest to go on a political campaign instead. They even pulled the, "It's what my character would do," card. The rest of the players apparently found it easier to play along than to have to deal with the screeching tirades of their supposed friend. Supposedly, (again, huge grain of salt,) the DM went ahead and played all this out while continuously dropping hints of growing evil on the edges of the kingdom. These hints were of course ignored over the _more pressing issue of inequality._ On the day that the party was celebrating the changing of the law, the Lich that they would have been fighting if they were out adventuring crashed the party, slaughtered everyone in the capitol including the PCs, overthrew the kingdom, turned it into an undead monstrosity factory, and conquered a large swath of the world. The player who instigated all of this was furious and accused the DM of being a bigot and ruining things out of personal spite for the player. The DM pointed out all of the warnings and calls to adventure that went ignored. The screecher tried to rally the rest of the players to tell the DM to change what happened, and the players halfheartedly tried to convince the DM to change things to keep the peace. The DM responded with, "But it's what my villain would do when left unopposed." This finally shocked the rest of the players back to reality, and they supported the DM. When the adult toddler didn't get their way, they threw a tantrum, told everyone they were no longer friends over this personal attack, and quit in a huff. The rest of the players rolled up resistance fighters in the new undead conquered lands and got to playing. I suspect what really happened was during the first session one player found out how realistic the setting was, tried to convince the DM to change it, and then quit when things didn't go their way. The players then asked what would have happened if they had actually played out changing the law, and the story is the result.
My guess is your assumption is closer to correct than the "horror story". People exaggerate these things to such an extreme it's basically unbelievable.
(I jest) The way I made dragons in my homebrew setting appropriate to "modern moral relativism" is I made them all draconian _evil_ business owners, politicians, crime lords, etc. I mean, if you're all about hoarding wealth and power, then what better way then starting up an apothecary and then infecting the local water supply with something only you have the cure for? How about starting up a monopolistic trade empire, or just creating a literal political empire that seeks to conquer all of it's neighbors for the glory of their undying Dragon Lord who also happens to actually be a dragon. (joke's over) In all seriousness, I thought the idea of dragons being highly intelligent and having a huge hoard because they're greedy but never trying to actively _grow_ that wealth didn't make any sense. It led to a lot of really interesting implications with how the world works. To be clear, the dragons are all unequivocally evil because they're dragons which are inherently evil, not because they're rich and powerful. As far as getting players to fight stuff. I've never had that problem. Besides, you can't talk the bandits out of trying to kill you. If they let you go, you'll narc on them and the guard will hunt them down and kill them. They're better off killing you and taking your stuff because no matter how convincing you are, you're still essentially saying, "trust me bro," and they're gambling with their life to trust you. Orcs and goblins are religiously and culturally obligated to kill you. You're not convincing them otherwise. Sure, you might be able to use wits, skill, and magic to _escape_ a combat, but it's not going to be easy. It's that simple.
