This is pretty common with new players that have a "video game mentality" they assume that things are fixed beyond their control and don't usually understand the extend to which the GM can bend the world for the story
That's very possible but I think well programmed adventure type games for example have tried to steer players better. I'm a point and click adventure fan and things like pixel hunting and combo trying are possibly the 2 biggest annoyances but like I say there's stuff programmers have done to minimise those frustrations...so yeah there is very likely a mentality of try everything by rote
It's when it's intentional that gets me the most. Everyone loves getting that "Woah, what?!" moment, but I just prefer my players let me in on it, even if it's via text. One of the worst feelings I've experienced as a GM is when someone reveals their master plan and I can see how excited they are, but they've read a rule wrong or they forgot about a key detail, and I get stuck feeling like the fun police. I feel like this video hit the nail on the head. Just tell me what you want and I'm more than happy to help. For me, it's so much more fun and rewarding to help them get that big moment they're looking for, rather than worrying about taking away someone's fun or just sitting with an uncomfortable feeling like the player is trying to pull one over on me or the game.
Well, we should also remember that the game rules are really more like guidelines anyways and sometimes I will bend (or even break) a rule if it leads to something really cool or funny.
@@dauchande Oh absolutely. I do the same thing and much prefer the rule of cool before all else. It's usually only when it would set a precedent moving forward where I look at rules more closely.
I see this in combat. Players asking distance questions and mechanics to try to figure out if they can do a cool thing rather than just say the cool thing they want to do. I make it a major point in Session 0, and reminders throughout the campaign that I am not the enemy. "I want you to do cool stuff, so tell me what that is so we can figure out a way for you to do it".
Damn, I've never thought about this...I will definitely keep that in mind next time someone asks "How far am I away?" or "What direction are they facing?" or something of that sort.
Vice versa, a DM was telling me that some of my tricks and traps were awful... "Why would you do that to the players?" He asked... It's not ME doing this... It's the monsters... The monsters made the clever trap, the lich his his phylactery in the robe of invisibility (hey good idea), etc. It's not me that's doing this and I feel players enjoy the experience and challenges
Yes! The point you made about players concealing their intentions when asking questions in order have a “gotcha” moment really annoys me as a GM. I always ask, “What are you going for here?” When I suspect this is happening and they usually respond honestly, but I’ve had players literally say, “Don’t worry about it” when I ask that. I respond with, “If you’re coming up with a plan, it’s better to let me in on it because it gives me more time to think about how it COULD work rather than make a snap judgment and say it doesn’t work.” Hell, I’ve had players ask tons of specific questions about the enemies and environment, but they don’t let me in on what they have planned. They go to cast this cool spell after wasting time setting this plan up and all I have to say is, “Dude, that spell requires a humanoid target and these enemies aren’t humanoid. Also, it’s a 1 minute casting time, not something you can cast in one action.” If he just asked if his plan would work I would've pointed out the issues with it before he wasted our time and his turn.
This is the reason why I asked my DM if it was possible if a dwarf blacksmith and a human fighter could invent the Barrett M82. Their response was yes BUT only if we could logically explain how we would do it.
This^ so much! They think if I don't know the plan then they can "outsmart" me and win, when all they're really doing is trying to cheat the "natural laws" in the game
Exactly! I love seeing my players come up with clever strategies and plan stuff in and out of game. Sometimes I take part in it as their NPC ally/allies, other times I just let them discuss and listen in. It's baffling, exciting, fun, to hear what ideas they come up with and it often changes the course or outcome of the story. I consider it absolutely necessary to always be informed of my players' plans, NOT so I can ruin their plans, but so I know what they're coming up with and can plan accordingly/adjust on my end, occasionally give a hint (f.e. when they're stuck, when a plan is bound to fail or too game-breaking) and essentialy work on how the story's gonna continue WITH my players.
I get how the PCs and the GM are often, by simple design of RPG systems, on opposite sides of a conflict. But I really don't go along with adversarial PC/GM relationships. I've played in games where the GM genuinely felt that it was an "Me vs Them" contest...which of course the PCs could never win. Holy shit that's not fun.
"You use the spell slot and commence casting. I'll let you know when it is complete." Combat starts and ends... Player who has the Wizard: "Can I do something now?" "No, you're still casting that spell."
The last big 4e D&D campaign I played in opened with the DM asking everyone what their PC's goal in life was. Three of the people insisted on keeping it secret from the rest of us and I never did find out what they were after. Two others wanted the usual fame, glory, immeasurable wealth and a peaceful retirement together in a demiplane of their own, which they accomplished around mid-epic tier (although the dimensional seed they planted in the Feywild took a few levels to mature so they kept adventuring for a bit while they waited). Me, my fighter wanted to restore his family's fortunes by bringing home a new mountain full of ore from the Elemental Chaos, because overreaching based on Dwarven fairy tales is hilarious. Damned if the GM didn't build the back half of epic tier around the party and our allies fighting an efreeti rebel who'd tamed a living mountain and was planning to breach the walls of the City of Brass with it. We wound up diverting the thing so it landed in an undead-infested swamp within sight of the mined-out mountain my PC had been raised in - well, under. Bit hard on the not-undead part of the wetlands ecology, but getting mired in the swamp slowed it down long enough for the different physics of the Prime Material to take over and turn it to (relatively) lifeless rock. Mission accomplished, and my guy got to quit adventuring to go help the relatives move in to their new (ahem) digs. Would not have happened in a billion years if I hadn't put the seed of the (batshit crazy) idea into the GM's head way back in session zero. So yeah, talk to your GM, even when you don't expect to get what you want. Inspiration comes from dumb ideas sometimes. That was a good few years run, haven't had such a steady group since then.
Ya. Was going to DM a campaign a while back. The general hook was a new city was being built and needed workers to help out. My first ask of my players were "I want you to bring in characters who still want to adventure and quest. Not set up a shop or take up an intercity job. Or, at least, if they do want to set up a shop, understand that they might get what they wish, but, for the sake of the game, we might have to turn that PC into an NPC." The people I was pitching this to gave me 3 brand new characters they had been working on, two of them wanted to set up a tavern and an Inn. Wanted to slam my head against the wall. Never got around to finishing the planning of that campaign.
I am a bit unsure here. I feel that you give a fine hook (a new city was being built and needed workers to help out) that really opens up for a versatile growth campaign. As I read it, then that city is the world the campaign takes place in. Thus I feel it to be obvious that the characters are better off connecting themselves with that city someway or another. What is a bit weak is telling them what not to do. (Not set up a shop or take up an intercity job.) *Not* is generally a bad word, better is to tell what to instead. (Better to "include" than to "exclude") Technically Taverns / Inns are neither shops nor intercity jobs, thus fair game. And I think it should not be that difficult to get all 3 together about something along that tavern/inn line. If you were aiming for something more specific... What do I know? A mansion? A museum? A ZOO? A Space Port? Then I think you should have presented those options (As "include" list.) They have anchored themselves in the city. (Thus you know they will stay in your world. - No need to figure out ways to prevent them from leaving it.) Your players have that way given you a "power base" ready to use. (You do not need to make one for them!) What do they need to make it grow? What people do they meet? You have it, something that can give an almost endless stream of adventures and quests. While, as the story progresses, they can see the result of their efforts as their place expands and advances!
@@larsdahl5528 Short answer. Because I’m a new DM, so asking for a simple, proactive player goal would save me a ton of mistakes, stress, and bending to try to get my ideas and hooks to entice rooted people. It’s easier to ambush players with plot hooks and the mysteries I had planned on the road rather than in the city. As, most of the greater plots I had planned necessitated them being out in the fields, learning, making connections, and discovering ruins and lost sanctums. Much like how the Curse of Strahd requests a person be a Cleric or Paladin, I ask for something far more open that the adventurers want to make a living adventuring. They’ll be given a home, maybe even a luxurious one if things go well, but I needed them doing jobs both in and outside the city, not worrying about running an inn. After all. You wouldn’t easily be interested in solving a riddle two towns over if your livelihood and income is tied up in running a business (by themselves, initially). To prevent this kind of forcing on my part when I’m still learning, I requested this.
@@Nickle_King Sound like you started out too ambitious. For beginners, I will say try out GM-ing a few one-shot scenarios, before taking on running a campaign. For everything, it is best to start out small, even when having a lot of theoretical knowledge. It is about building up experience. That experience brings the confidence to go on with the more advanced stuff. And make it easy for yourself; proper tools make things easier. Here I will say: Go for an RPG system that does support role-play. Just because the experienced handyman can hit a nail properly with many tools, it is still better for a beginner to start out with some sort of hammer.
Being honest with your dm saves so much time. Like in roleplay when I'm trying to pry information out a npc often I'll ask my DM OoC "am i getting anywhere here?" and he'll either be like "lets keep going and find out what u can get" or he'll be like "that guys just not gonna give up that information no matter how hard you try". I'd rather be told "no" than to waste my time with with a rube goldberg machine that hes gonna shut down anyway
Y'know, this is actually one of my favorite parts of the Scion system; in that game, XP gain is tied heavily to fulfilling "Deeds", which come in 3 forms. There's the band deed (basically, what the players as a group want to accomplish), a long term deed, which is more like a character arc, and a short term deed, which is a single, simple goal that can typically be done in a session. It's even outright written that it can be a specific type of scene that the player wants. It forces a player to give the GM specific things that they *want* to do, and helps mitigate this problem.
That's why in call of cthulu, they say to describe intent instead of action when declaring a roll. They give an example that if everyone deacribes actions instead of intent that it can just spiral out of control because the dice are left out. "I swing my sword! I freeze the sword! Yeah, well I actually set the sword on fire! I break the sword! Foiled again? I'll just punch you!" And on, and on, and on... Great rule that I use all the time to deal with the problems you described in this video, along with some good old fashioned talking! "I'm the GM, you can trust me, get to the point, and tell me what you want. Don't dilly dally! If you don't know what you want either, that's fine! But make it clear that you have no idea what you're going for either! You can trust that I, the GM will make sure you have a great time, and that what you do results in something interesting." Great video as always! It's nice to finally see a video about this topic! It was something I knew others suffered from because of experience but always had a naghing feeling that it was just me. Hopefully this increases awareness about this problem for GM's and players alike.
Great video. As a GM I've learned to ask, "What is your character trying to accomplish?" This can cut down on the requests for specific rolls, and helps me to prepare success and fail conditions prior to the roll.
I feel the goal is changing: At first, the goal is to get an overall impression of the village. Later, the goal changes to finding a fletcher. I sense a collision of interests: GM wants to give a fine map to give a quick overview of the village. PC sees no describing text anywhere, and thus starts the tedious question sequence. In short: I think the map is counterproductive, in that it gives the impression that there is something more important (handout emphasis) to this village.
This reminds me of something that happened to me a few weeks ago. Our party was exploring a dungeon and entered a tunnel just small enough we had to crawl through it on our hands and knees (except the halfling). The tunnel seemed to just keep going and going without end, and my DM (who also watches these videos) emphasized this by stating that hours keep passing one by one. At this point I was pretty sure I knew what was happening, and I had an idea of how to test. So, I said that my character took a metal piton out and stabbed it into the ground, and that we should keep moving. I had expected to just test my theory and then explain to the other players. They, however, were having none of that. They would not proceed until I explained my theory: we were in some kind of loop using portals to send us back to an earlier part of the cave whenever we progressed past a certain point. We kept going and happened upon the piton again, proving my theory. Another player then used detect magic and we figured out how to solve the puzzle. What I find interesting is that, unlike the scenarios in this video, this was lack-of-communication between players (I'm certain my DM knew what I was doing). I wanted to have my "gotcha" moment, which would have been more of a "haha, look how smart I am" moment by not explaining my plan until AFTER I had proof. It kind of took a little bit of the fun out of it for me in the moment, but in the end I still felt good about figuring out the situation. Plus, looking back, it wasn't really fair to everyone else to not explain what I was doing. I guess what I'm saying is, sometimes you need talk to the other players as well, that way they're on the same page. I think it's also important to note that me explaining my plan would make sense both and out of game, which was good, but sometimes you'll need separate the two. Maybe your character has some kind of secret or hidden goal that, while the other characters in the game shouldn't know about, the players probably should. It might sound like meta gaming, but it can also help a game run more smoothly.
Great video. Of course, asking creates expectations. I remember a DM a few years ago who specifically asked his players what sort of player-specific magical item would they like (sort of as an evolving item) and I suggested some sort of espionage/stealth themed wonderous item as my character was heading that way and I thought it would add a lot more RP options and flavour. He then completely ignored my request and made me an arm mounted dart thrower. If he’d just given that to me without asking, I’m sure I would have worked out how to have fun with it, but as it was, I was simply disappointed.
Something I've found is this tendency for players to feel like the game is something the GM gives them, rather than something they have a creative stake in, particularly this sense that although they have hopes of something they'd like to happen, that if they simply *ask* for it rather than the GM guessing correctly what they want, that it somehow *doesn't count* Hard mindset to break. And here in NZ there's the problem that players don't want to make a fuss. Ask them at the outset what they want, and you'll get a chorus of "Yeah, nah, I'm good with anything eh", but as soon as you hand them a buyer's guide of magic items and large objects (elephants, airships, etc.) they'll enthusiastically start asking if the campaign can contain this or that in it. Self-defeating mindsets, everywhere
On "When it's intentional" For the largest part I share the opinion that it's hurtful for the game. But I have to say that once or twice I experienced it when my players hid a plan or secret from me to surprise me. As a GM it is seldom the case that one can be surprised by a larger twist or reveal.
Yea we recently had a scene in a campaign that was incredible. One player met with a hugely important NPC which is as much enemy as he is a potential (dangerous) ally. The GM did not know what exactly the player was planing, so he was as surprised as the NPC. It lead to a great situation in which the player could even trick the NPC/GM with a trick in phrasing. Now on the other side, the rest of us players even helped the GM come up with what the NPC could say and so on. Cooperation is the key.
Something I have come to discover through many years is that when players keep their plans secret from the GM, then it is due to a balancing failure made subconsciously by the GM. I have seen several examples of this GM behavior where the thoughtful players fail at their well-thought-out plans, while at the same time the chaotic hothead players succeed with their actions. Why? Because the thoughtful players give the GM time to think up a way for their plans to fail. The hothead players succeed with their speedy actions because they are so fast that the GM does not have the time to think up failures. That can lead to the planning players do hide their plans from the GM to get that "no time to foil the plan" benefit the hotheads get! I have seen many GMs do this, completely unaware of what they are doing. First, when I list all the plans and actions taken by the players and look at what succeeded and what failed, they recognize how grotesquely unbalanced they are: Everything the planners do run into complications and everything the hotheads do is carried out straight away; a 0% vs. 100% success rate is surprisingly common! An example I saw a little while ago, was: The characters were aboard a ship that almost hit a dead whale. A hothead character lassoed the whale and pulled it aboard. That was what happened, the GM accepted it. If the player had asked if it was possible to lasso the whale and pull it aboard, that GM was (When I pointed it out) well aware of that the answer would be: "No, you can not lasso something mostly underwater, and you definitely do not have the strength to lift a whale."
So many of these videos boil down to trust. Do the players trust you as a DM? If they don't, is it because of you or a past experience? How can we develop that trust over time?
I came to think of something Neil deGrasse Tyson said on Startalk, while they were talking about movies. Neil deGrasse Tyson is known for preferring when movies get things scientifically correct. In this case, the talk was about a movie where that included some superpower. Neil deGrasse Tyson pointed out that those superpowers are not based on science, thus he accepts that other things in the movie were not scientifically correct either. I think that is a good point, not only for fiction movies but for fiction games as well! Let us take a look at that magic ring cannonball launcher: I see in quite some of the other comments people think up ways to explain why it will not work. The problem with that is it ruins trust: The player comes up with something, but gets a "No!". If we want to develop trust, then we have to give the player a "Yes!". In this case, it is simple: We just use Neil deGrasse Tyson's approach: As there is already magic in the game; then, of course, it will work, because... Magic...! If you work together with the players, with a "Yes!" attitude, you develop trust. If you work against the players, with a "No!" attitude, you destroy trust.
@@larsdahl5528 sometimes you'll have to say no due to how the spell or feature works (consistency is a must for dming) but for the most part if the players went out of their way to make use of their spells/features in an impressive yet justifiable way then definitely go yes.
This is definitely a very useful video explaining as to why Players should communicate there intentions instead hiding them for gotcha moments. However, I do have one counterpoint I would like to make. While I agree with all the points in this video, I have witnessed first hand, Players hiding intent from me as the DM and pulling off successful gotcha moments. But all of these successful gotcha moments that I've witnessed have all been in the spirit of humor. Like a Player taking a bunch of inconspicuous actions that lead up to a pun, or punch line, or an in game practical joke.
RE the cannonball flintlock, two ways to fairly nerf it if you need to: 1) The flintlock is muzzle loading so the cannonball has to pass through it on the way in... Your weapon has jammed, or loading takes a lot longer as they have to fit the ring on the end before firing it... 2) The law of conservation of momentum - v1.m1 = v2.m2 so if the mass suddenly jumps 10x, the velocity drops 10x, and the cannonball falls to the floor under the force of gravity in about 5 feet...
There's a variation on "gotcha" I often see in Call of Cthulhu or other games with high risk for the PCs: players being vague about what they want or what they're trying to do so they don't get "caught" by the GM. It can get really tiresome.
Uhh...guys? A musket is a muzzle loader. The mini cannon ball would revert as the Player loads the ball destroying the musket's muzzle. So, yeah. The Player definitely got one over on the GM.
It's also good to be specific about what you want, if it's important to you. Many years ago, I was a player in a campaign my brother-in-law was running. We were new recruits in a guild of professional assassins, and my character took pride in the fact that his victims never knew who he actually was (until it was too late) and never left any witnesses to identify him. That is, until going up against another assassin who was intent on keeping me from rising through the ranks of this guild. He ambushed me and though I survived the fight, I was left with a big scar on my left hand that could be an easy way for me to be identified. After that first campaign, my GM asks me what I'm interested in doing next. I tell him, "it would be cool to track down that guy that gave me this scar and have my revenge!" Well, in the next session, the assassin appears on the street for no real reason, confronts me, and basically just says, "let's fight!" We fight, I get my revenge, all is well. I guess. Later he asks me if I enjoyed getting my revenge. I tell him, "well, it didn't really feel satisfying to be honest. I was kind of picturing more of a drawn-out story where I'd have to hunt him down, follow clues, figure out where he was hiding, maybe fight my way through a few henchmen and perhaps some dead-ends and missed-him-by-mere-minutes situations before the ultimate battle. You know, something that required some time and effort. This confrontation really felt more like you just handed him to me on a silver platter." One of the issues with my brother-in-law is that he's not great at accepting criticism, so he got upset and ultimately we never played that campaign again; but that's an entirely different enchilada.
Sounds like there's also a communication problem (at the time) on your end As well. You thought you conveyed that, but he only received 'give me a chance to kill him' instead. If either side had asked the other for clarity to be sure they were on the same page, it would have gone better. I figure you've learned that already by now, but it immediately stuck out to me and so I decided to address it just in case.
1:55 I have totally been 'that guy' asking for every building, looking for whatever kind of place silvers weapons. I don't recall 'silversmith' coming up, but that 'candlestick maker' probably would have done.
What do you mean 'Kirk vs. Picard' was weird? That one was awesome! I've seen that scene so many times (minus the genius MacGyvering) that it felt like a Saturday with my pals. Also, nice Jeff shoutout.
The solution for that Portable Cannon is actually quite simple: magically shrinking something doesn't change other properties; the "bullets" still weigh the same as a cannonball. He won't be carrying many of those with him.
I'd say the shrunk ball weighs very little (because magic, and we're always using shrunk stuff to hide in our pockets) but once it unshrinks, the weight of the ball increases and the tiny powder load isn't enough to carry it, so they fire their gun and a cannonball plops to the ground from the end of the barrel. Or... the cannonball grows, but it hadn't cleared the barrel yet, so now their gun is ruined and if they're lucky it didn't backblast the charge into their face.
@@SSkorkowsky If you've already established in-game that magical shrinking also reduces weight, then a DM is (possibly) stuck with that; but I've always DM'ed that magic can only alter one property of an item at a time, and that multiple enchantments laid on an item, whether temporary or permanent, increase the odds of failure for all enchantments on that item, and increases the risk of a critical failure. Magic is risky business!
The cannon gun would not work if I was the GM.... because of conservation of momentum. Sure the ball might turn back into the original size (and thus weight) and thus the speed would immediately drop close to zero and would probably drop a meter or so away from the player.
Always discourage Player VS DM stuff, absolutely. There are a ton of reasons why it's a bad idea for everyone. But also, the power imbalance will always swing to favor the DM who can just declare truths by DM fiat. Oh, the anti-magic ring at the end of your musket with shrunken cannonballs sounds clever? Well, as DM I can decide that the anti-magic works instantaneously (or near enough) so that the shrunken cannonballs are back to full size in that fraction of time _before_ they leave the barrel and so either the cannonball is firmly stuck in place (ruining the whole contraption and the ring) or the end explodes into fragments that will kill the wielder and everyone else in a close enough radius. In fact, maybe the ring is destroyed by this, which releases the energy of the enchantment in an additional arcane explosion! _Damage?_ Oh, no, it tears a hole in the fabric of reality, things are spilling out at the same time as everything nearby is being pulled in to this tear that leads to several different realms/dimensions/voids at once. As fun as it is for me to imagine the absolute cataclysm I just made up... I'd much rather play _cooperatively_ with the people at my table than competitively.
One time I ran a Swashbuckling game that I advertised as being light hearted and heroic like old Robin Hood or Prisoner of Zenda. I ended up with a party of super powered anti hero murder hobos.
I did once pull a "Gotcha!" On a DM but it wasn't in any kinda game breaking way so much as clever RP. So my character winds up talking to one of the lovers of the BBEG they're rather sassy and mention how they hate the other wives of this BBEG so my character who openly hates them as well litterally pulls up a chair "oh tell me about it!" This goes on for a minute or so before one of the other players makes a joke ooc bout my character being silly. Yes he is he was designed to be but at that moment I revealed I was actaully being clever "guys I'm digging for information!" Then proceeded to do a quick run down of all the info I'd gathered from litteral gossip. I don't think the dm realized what I was doing but it did make everyone laugh. I love being a Yoda type character who's smart just not in the traditional sense
Wait you said of you players did the shape charge with their other Game Master Jeff at 11:12? Was this by chance the "GREATEST DUNGEON MASTER ALIVE™" Jeff? It does make sense he was able to pull it off then, Jeff is pretty great, after all, Seth 😉
A third reason for a player intentionally hiding the big picture is to not influence the DMs ruling. There have been some things that I wanted to clear with my DM ahead of time but didn't want him to try to say yes just because I wanted a thing to work a certain way. I always still go over what I was thinking about and how I thought it would work but I'd rather know ahead of time my DM would want to deny it and then they won't feel pressured to work it into their world.
Key advice here for GMs - always answer in generalities first. Q: "What is that building?" A: "That part of town has various shops in it. All the things you'd expect to find in a town of this size, plus a few local specialties." This almost always pulls the question out of them, "Is there a bowmaker?" etc.
That works very well. In this situation, if your player says what they need, you can (technically) retcon your previous ruling by saying, "well, this area IS known for the good hunting," granted, this is definitely less noticeable if it's something the characters would know through local gossip.
I give what I call a "first blush" description of just about anything in general "broad strokes" manners... Towns almost ALWAYS have a "General Mercantile" (which is our D&D technical term for General Store) where you can usually find what you're looking for (at least a "generic version" and/or get some direction about how to go about finding what you're looking for (like a specialty item)... In the "I'm looking for arrows" thing... (and because I AM a practiced archer/fletcher)... The "generic" arrow is a hunting arrow that just about any fletcher is equipped to cheaply make... These artisans sell through the General Store (something like "on commission") so you're not likely to find a specific "Bowyer/Fletcher" shop... Decent hunting bows are also available, and usually top out with just enough STR for a damage benefit... Some General Mercantiles (at towns worthy of a contingent of soldiers) may also carry and deal "war bodkins" with various benefits to flight, precision, and even damage, depending on the flavor/mood... AND for military grade bows, you likely need a technical specialist, BUT you can get a "Strength Bow" rated to "fit your arm and draw" which allows for added STR benefits up to medium range... Crossbows and Arbalests are the "civilian and military" variants for the obvious, with Arbalests firing "war quarrels" and some even requiring winches and crap to reload, making them considerably slower, but adding MASSIVE benefits to range and damage... and expenses for ammo... NOT that you're going to care especially about shattering the "cheap stuff" on impact... so long as SOME damage is generally delivered... AND yes, there WAS a "for realzies" "Pellet bow" made much like a crossbow or arbalest, but designed with the string threaded through a "striker" that would eject a stone or "bullet" held near the front of the instrument and kept in place with a small curved "spring" of metal... at least on the one I saw, and later on the version I was able to build. I've found researching into and working this kind of technical knowledge into the Game is worth it for the variety. Players get to "find" impressive weapons and think about getting them enchanted for things other than "Instant X-monster destruction" and I have something for the economy to eat up some of that treasure everyone's so excited to find and stockpile... and then whine about not having to spend any of it. In any case... Basic History 101... or maybe(?) 202 stuff so grab at it... Enjoy... AND it doesn't usually take too long for Players to figure my "terminology" (or code... haha) out so they ask the best relevant questions as we go. ;o)
I usually put some kind of bazaar or marketplace in my towns. Where you'd find whatever your heart desires. Including gnomish hookers or elven drug dealers.
Such a compelling set of three from the old rhyme, even if it has little relevance in our lives. I'd make my improvisation less blatant by replacing the candlestick maker with a green grocer, so the characters can get together a well-rounded meal. :)
"What's this one?" - Tavern "What's this one?" - Headshop "What's this one?" - Sex Toy Store "What's this one?" - Your character's brutal and irreversible death if this continues.
As a non-veteran DM I can say the presence of chandeliers/ropes/vines/etc in a room has a direct correlation to players asking if there are such objects in said room. Is that wrong? I don't think so.
I'm pretty sure Erol Flynn's career as the original swashbuckling action hero can be directly correlated with the presence of chandeliers! Plus, it makes for good set-dressing! Source: I am a former "pirate ship campaign" DM . :D
If you actually mention that sort of detail before being asked you inevitably create a Chekov's Chandelier. Once its existence is established, a chandelier *must* be swung upon. :)
I've only been a DM for 8 years so take what you will. But when you full an area with stuff to interact with, make sure the enemies use some stuff too. Cover, shape stone on a pillar or statue to make it fall, a boss using a telekinesis lair action to break all the mirrors in the room damaging anyone within 10 feet of one, shocking grasp on a puddle of water. Your players will start getting creative with your environment as well.
Even if it was a breechloader, when you fired your very first shot the leading edge of the ball would trip the anti-magic while the bulk of the projectile was still in the barrel and behind the ring. Unless there was a couple millisecond delay on the dispel effect your weapon would resemble Elmer Fudd's after Bugs jammed his finger in the barrel.
I assume you would actively be able to take it on and off or it wouldn't work for the reasons you describe. There's other comments who go into how it wouldn't work even if it did get into the barrel, so I won't repeat those at length here. But yeah, I can't see it working in so many angles; it's actually a really good example of "talk to the GM", because as a GM, I'd know that they want something but it wouldn't work the way they expect it to, so a different solution might come about... Instead, either the gun/barrel blows up or the cannonball lands at the player's feet... I'm sure a magical solution could work, if done properly, but in terms of 3.5E, which is what I assume they were playing, what the player described doesn't work ten ways from Sunday...
The issue I saw, was the mass of the cannonballs. Does the shrink spell reduce the mass as well? If not, you have a musket ball that weighs as much as a cannonball. If your musket is powerful enough to fire a ball that massive without exploding, why use the dispel magic ring at all when you essentially have a armour piercing railgun at that point. If it does indeed reduce the mass, than when it passed though the dispel field, the returning mass would increase the wight and the force applied by the rifle would be insufficient to propel it very far. Personally, I like the visual idea of someone trying this, and firing the cannonball about a foot, onto their buddy’s foot.
@@Crow.Author Great visualisation! I mean, "technically" if you have magic in the world, it messes with basic laws of physics so you might excuse this but - in essence - the charge propelling a musketball doesn't exert enough energy to propel a cannon ball. 🙂
I find that many players vastly overestimate the amount of detail GM's pre-prepare. I know for myself that I _intentionally_ leave things that don't _need_ to be defined, undefined. Just get the broad strokes and add detail only when needed. But players tend to assume that you've crafted this simulation of an entire world in your head before the campaign even started. I mean, it's flattering, but no. I tend to favor some kind of structure for the beginning of a campaign but, once the players get their feet under them, what's in the wider world is going to be very dependent upon what they _want_ to be in the wider world.
Eh. Idk it depends on the situation. Sometimes I write 30+ pages and it’s basically an entire prewritten scenario or sometimes it’s not even a page. I find for mysteries with a lot of investigation and clues and characters I tend to prepare a lot more before hand. I’m also a big lore guy and handout guy so those can take a lot of prep work beforehand. But on the other hand, I enjoy having improve sessions too to avoid my players (I only play with a small group of same folks each time) getting too familiar with my literary formulas and style.
I HATED as a GM, when my player refused to tell me or other players his goal. It was never even something that we would have any reason to sabotage... I believe it was something he took from his previous games. It was really awfull, because I could not help him get his goal and he was frustrated, because his plans did not work as he did not ask for enough details....
I have a long time friend who is usually a player in my games. We've played together for _years_ now, with a few lengthy breaks. Since around 2005. And only recently have I gotten him to finally let up on this "don't trust the GM" mentality. He would usually do everything he could to make what I considered a "boring" character. No flaws. No notable back story. No real wants or desires or history (but maybe a vague goal like "get rich"). He'd avoid having any sort of relatives or mentors or social connections established for his characters, no attachments to any location or pre-existing club/organization/career and so on. Blank slates, in many respects. For a long time I just didn't get it -- I'd happily open up my characters to all kinds of troubles and complications. He did this because before we ever played together he had (in the military) played a lot of D&D with a DM who apparently would use any and every sort of thing like that against the players so that the DM could "win" in a blatantly antagonistic fashion. And the games were all very much oriented around tactical combat situations (military, after all) so the idea of flawed characters was considered "bad". I'm actually more surprised my friend still wanted to play at all after that experience.
Much like we have animal shelters that work with abused/traumatised animals to help them overcome their past before going to loving homes, I feel like we need the same for players (and GMs) that have come from adversarial tables to help them adjust to cooperative tables.
Some people are just secretive &/or antagonistic by nature when playing RPGs. Their sneaky, suspicious, competitive side comes out. It drives me crazy, but I guess they can't help the tendency.
@@Caitlin_TheGreat If you dont mind me asking you, what are you doing now after knowing why your friend made blank slate characters due to past experience, aside from continuing to play with them of course (if its the case)?
I had a modern RPG game, but the plot took a turn as they got transported to 1880 in Texas. The group set about trying to get their footing and one of my players spent about 30 minutes going around town buying random components with vague terms (all the gadgety metal things in this store, barb wire here, etc) and I asked him, "You can ask people in town for specific things if you want them." Didn't go along with that. Finally he got back to his hotel room (their current base of operations at that point) and then told me he was going to try to build an electric generator. His PC was a big computer guy and he had such a heavy tech set that it would not be practical in 1880. I looked at him and said, "Why didn't you say that 30 minutes ago?" He thought I would have said no. I looked at him and said, "The town has electric lighting along Main Street, the hotel has electricity in the main room downstairs, had you said something you could have saved yourself a lot of time and would likely have been able to tap into that power source." He was a bit put off...
And then he had the balls to argue with me about municipal power grids not being a thing and I said the street has power, a few buildings along the main drag have power. Not a grid. And why was he arguing when it made it easier for his PC? Because he thought he was correct. Not the DM who enjoys history and who researched the hell out of the time and period.
@@tkbeveridge That seems like a reasonable answer to the question. Grids didn't just materialize out of nowhere, or get built in complete blocks at a time! Of course the Main Street in every city in the country was the first one lit up, and the more successful businesses along Main Street would be the first to have electricity! Likewise, we used to have these things called "Telegram Offices", one per town, with one line stringing it to the next town, where you could go and pay by the word to have short messages sent!
I knew I recognized that map! Our long running campaign started with Secret of Bone Hill. We call it the Restenford game. The hiding of intentions from the GM is one I try to combat by being fair. I want my players to do something cool/creative, just because I know it's coming doesn't mean I'm going to ruin it so I can "win".
Many years ago, the GM I was playing under was a bit adversarial (blame it on his roommates who were also players and set an adversarial tone in their play. Well, at the culmination of the campaign, we were getting ready to raid the home of his version of Tiamat. We knew, from previous adventure arcs, that he was going to use his knowledge of our skills, spells and equipped items to tailor the fight to make us lose. So, as our characters were sleeping in a cave to rest up for the fight, we players communicated between sessions and swapped around which character had which major items, and changed our battle plans on that basis. - Next session, we entered the lair of "not-Tiamat" and her top ancient chromatic dragons. We killed three of the five ancients and landed the killing blow on "not-Tiamat" in (if I recall) about 5 or 6 rounds. We got a "bright flash of light" and were returned to our home city, not knowing if the killing blow ever landed or not. - edit: We later explained why we switched items around, and I think that discussion really helped us all be better players and GMs after that.
More than anything else the "gotcha" version of this problem bothers me. Certain spells in D&D seem especially prone to this. "What kind of weapon is the barbarian warlord weilding?" "Well, like I said, it's a greataxe." "What kind of handle does it have?" "Well I suppose it's made of some wicked looking dragon bone from a kill their father's father made long ago." "Oh, so Heat Metal won't work on it then?" "Why the hell didn't you start with that? Just say 'will Heat Metal work on their weapon next time!'" Don't back me into a corner where I might nullify your spell because you thought you'd trick me into saying the weapons handle is made of metal. It will either work or it won't, I'm not here to be your adversary, the villains are!
Gotta say Seth missed the third reason for the "Gotcha" thing... With some GM's there's a sub-plot to the Game, and Players who can surprise them from time to time can win stuff in-game... I've known quite a few... It's just a subtler layer of "mental chess" involved as the regular game carries on... Plots don't inherently change, and you CAN be "the big dumb stereotypical barbarian" at absolutely ZERO deficit... BUT manage the gag or bit that shocks the GM into wide-eyed silence and earn "the face" and you can get a little something in-game... usually worth no more than a cheesy +1 something or other flashy, but something... screw it up (like getting "caught") and it's nothing worse than a denial and call-out... something like "Yeah, don't think for a moment that I can't see you slowly constructing Batman in my D&D setting mid-game." ..."Damn... I tried, guys." It kind of depends on the general "flavor" of the Game and the "Play Style" of the GM. BUT a solid group of Players CAN have a perfectly healthy Game of "Gotcha" with their GM and still carry on the Campaigns. It takes a gift for subtlety and keeping it to an agreeable layer of "sub-plot"... That's all. Whatever "styles" you want to mix or match at the Game Table, the top priorities are the Game, itself, and FUN for everyone, including the GM. Keep to that, and you can get by with quite a lot... ;o)
@@elgatochurro Well, you just keep waxing and twirling the mustaches on your cute little copies of Snidely Whiplash... burn out and wonder why in that case. ;o)
I've always found the idea of "pulling one over on the GM" to be such a strange mindset. It'd only ever be acceptable if you're dealing with a GM who needs a mouthful of humble pie. Of course, given how so many TRPG stories on the internet are hugely exaggerated, if not outright fabrications, I doubt it ever happened in the first place the way the narrator says it did.
My last game shop, the owner's wife that DM would just seriously screw over the PCs during play. She wouldn't out right kill the players' PCs, just used a random roll chart to screw them over. Great news, she was a great storyteller and like watching any good horror movie or book, you just have to see how the next guy is going to get it. We had a couple of new players one day that didn't hear how over the top we could get. Game started off at 2nd-level PC facing off against a goblin tribe in a set of caves ruled over by six bugbears. Opening part of play the PC ended up running from a giant insect with the dwarf being carried by the half ogre, with the dwarf yelling to run faster. DM, " As you goblins are hanging out playing cards you see an ogre carrying five other screaming people run pass your doorway being chased by a giant insect." Long time player, " I slowly close the door." Other old player, " I tell the others I am going to check on the children as I go out the back side door." New Player, " Wait a minute, we are now PCing the goblins ?! How do you guys know there are two doors in the room ? She didn't say anything about doors being in the room ?!" DM, " You are the goblins, and this is your home so you guys should know the lay out." Long time player, " It is called Reverse Dungeon, you make it up as you go along. The DM gives your lair actions a yes or no base on the even vs odds number rolled on the dice." Plot points, .. Giant insects invaded the goblins' lair. Six bugbear took over the goblins, the runt of the bugbears just want to get away from the other bugbears, will help the PCs. Goblins are more than happy to team up with the dwarf and half ogre to get rid of the bugbear bullies. Funny combat, two bugbears chase the PCs into a dead-end room with a door having no lock. Pushing contest on the door between two bugbears vs two humans and three goblins. Bugbears win strength check push door but failed their balance dexterity causing them to slip and fall inwards. The PCs counter shove and slam the door into the face of a bugbear knocking it out. Outcome, the goblins raise young giant insects for food and turn the shells into wood vanish for the human villagers and trade trace minerals with the humans, and hunt/eat field rats. Humans trade the goblins cheese, other food stuff, and clothes. The local lord sells the minerals the goblin mines. 2.) Another combat encounter story, my PC ended up in mass combat and came face to face with the enemy warlord. I rolled high enough for a lucky off hand attack nut shot kick ! Bad news, I failed my strength check to knock him off balance and only did 1dmg. ( I have been in bad moments like that in real life .. all that does is really pizz the other guy off , .. a lot ! ) The warlord toss away his shield and sword, and curb stomp my PC with his bare hands, cussing the whole time for ten rounds yelling. There was a d20 roll of 15, two 20's, and seven rolls above 16's on intimidation skill checks. Combat just stop and everyone just said .. D .. A ..M .. ! Hope you have a good weekend, and have fun gaming.
Being optimistic, I think it's not about screwing over or tricking the GM, but instead about doing something so clever and inventive that even the GM (the god of the world) is surprised. Think about how much of fiction deals with "ordinary" humans outsmarting (and/or otherwise overcoming) forces that should be above them; it's the arrogant and ambitious part of human nature. In a less dramatic sense, the players just wanna be the one special player that does this super awesome thing that even the GM couldn't anticipate.
I've had some try stuff like combining spells and the like to be able to do incredibly ridiculous, overpowered things. They ended up not being fans of wands of counterspell or wands of antimagic that didn't have any charges left by the party got to them.
As long time GM I always frame my actions with specifically mentioned end-goal to anyone who runs game for me. It really helps them making the game better for me.
Yea I am lucky that I only play with friends or friends of friends, so there is some base level of understanding in every group I play or GM. Being clear with your intentions or asking about them when in doubt is one of the first behaviours we all learned.
Same. I learned it first from Burning Wheel, and now when I play I first state what my character tries to achieve, and then how they go about it. It makes it much easier for the GM.
saying what you want out of character is such a valuable skill I encourage at my table. As a player for other gms, or in stories? Too often there can be a mentality of not in character, spoils the game. The meta can facilitate the play. "I am looking for some place to ___" Or "I want to diplomacy the guards but.." "What do you say" "Uh... I want to compliment the uniform?" Then fail because the player themself is shy. As a player, if there is something needed, I will tell the GM before or after game session so can work it into their narrative and not caught off guard. The player is not the character. If I am unsure how to roleplay cause stumped just a mental lock or it being tedious? I will tell the GM my intent. Two sessions ago in our Pathfinder? We encountered some hags, but resources were slim. So I wanted to negotiate our safety. There was roleplay, but it was going on since I didnt want to just meta knowledge hags that my character only just met and didnt know much about. So after a bit of awkward roleplay banter? I said to DM that I wanted to explain how X will solve Y and just want to try and reach an accord for safe passage. We made rolls and the GM gave a narrative on how I was able to do what I was having trouble with for roleplay.
For sure and I think you also hit on some other advice that's really important for players amd GMs to know: Not every player has to be an actor and also as you said players are not their characters. There is always gonna be a dissonance. Be it a difference of knowledge, behaviour or ideals. There is nothing wrong with talking OOC. It's a game to have fun, not a performance for an audience.
Years ago I power gamed a 3.5e fast talking con man. The DM normal starts us out at 4th level so I multi class Aristocrat1/rogue1/expert1/bard1 with diplomacy/bluff at 16 ranks each. Every social encounter where I could take 10 was smooth running, I was the most popular new guy in town. When I had to roll to talk to nobles or muscle just looking to rough someone up, IF a roll came up as an 8 on d20 it was a high roll ! Way too many 2-5, and 1's were common as h3ll ! Along with felling my dexterity/balance check of tripping over my own feet as I walk up and greet important people. On one hand that PC was built with a Silver Tongue, but all the rolls ended up of having him be a stuttering clucks. He was meant to become a powerful merchant lord, but all the dice rolls had him as a court jester greeting visitors and haggling over chicken eggs. As a joke my game shop would hand out index cards with 20th-level PC with stats of 25 across the board with +5 equipment. Then see how much the dice hates that PC during play. Hope you have a good weekend, and have fun gaming.
The anti-magic ring cannon thing is cute, but most likely wouldn't work. A rifle imparts enough energy to propel a little metal pellet. It doesn't impart enough energy to propel a cannonball. Assuming conservation of momentum, which is how the physics do, the large mass of the cannonball would drop the velocity of the shot to useless levels. That itself is a case where it would have been wiser to ask about and quest after a magic item that will do the thing you want.
You might say it drops to useless velocity, but, think of that...what if you shot the rifle while directly above someone's head? ;D (mostly joking, just to be clear)
UUugh... I had a player unload on me to the extent that it broke our friendship. According to him, I had given him nothing to enjoy in the three years he had been playing with me. This, despite me having allowed him to play highly customized characters, world build elements of the world, and many other concessions and fun collaborations we had done. At any rate, he called me a "shit GM" and told me I had "ruined RPGs and creativity for him". For the love of god, people, communicate.
@@richmcgee434 oh that was never a concern. What got me is that this was a player and a friend who came to me for DMing advice, collavorated with me on gaming projects, had really good feedback and collaboration in games. His response was absolutely unfounded and unhinged and , while my initial reaction was shock abd then an attemot to make sense of it, I eventually had to advocate for myself and just decide that his level of nasty and negativity was just something I had to cut out of my game and my life. I am aware he may have been going through some stuff at the time, but it doesn't excuse his behavior and then his doubling down on it.
Even I offer my players to help would build... They don't... Now when a DM I play under have me three opportunity I don't want to cause of the discussion rolled her made for his setting, all new and all unexplained to any detail I could care about... Like roses away so the gods made in 5e for btw ones that yet... No one knew about apparently... No history, no tales, and yet it's just why? That's why I'm not building on it though because they seem like faceless no bodies, at least in forgotten realms I could read up on a God and go "ah yes, I like this one for my character." Granted maybe these are all just new things he made but if they have nothing... NOTHING TO KNOW ABOUT THEM... WHY BOTHER? It's like why does ANYONE follow these gods if they know nothing about them???
Players asking a series of small leading questions to create a "gotcha" moment are in a way some of the most disruptive players around. They train the GM to say "no" because the GM will be worried about what they'll end up allowing, and this just creates a bad time for everyone.
Legit I'm a DM, and in another game there's a GM who just doesn't trust me on any request and I don't even try to have the system or such. "No if I let you you'll abuse it you'll find some way to min max it because you know the system more." I can't even try meanwhile his other players get a pass on various weird things... Feels bad
In my first game I gmd (now forever gm) I went with the butcher, baker, candlestick maker joke. The candlestick maker became a big deal because I created candle magic and to this day my players (no matter the game) always ask if they can find a candle magic crafter in town.
3.5e " Tomb & Blood," handbook for wizards and sorcerers, Prestige class: something about Candle magic functioning with potions with meta magic feats lighting off two spells at once.
Good tips. I'm a fan of narrative RPGs as they tend to enforce this kind of communication naturally - since the mechanics have to follow from the scene framing. That cannonball example drives me a little loopy - given conservation of momentum the cannonball would immediately fall at the feet of the firer!
Random thought, if you see it happening and want to add a layer of verisimilitude, have the town guard come up and say, “adventurer, you seem lost. Is there some place you are looking for?” If they answer, the town guard can point them in the right direction. If you think the town guard wouldn’t know, doesn’t matter, you now know as the GM and can set up something appropriate or accordingly
Hey Seth, I really enjoy the videos! Great ideas on your channel! I'd like to share a war story about game philosophy, and it involves learning how to lose! Some players have a hard time dealing with it when their character doesn't make every roll in heroic fashion, but sorry, dice don't work like that! Sometimes, even an embarrassingly bad roll can be turned to your advantage and make you look cool! A few years ago, I was playing in a Shadowrun game with people online, and I was playing a suave babyface super-spy type character, with some skill in stealth and small arms. The character was established with some experience, but by no means the most powerful on the discord server. One night, my VERY FIRST GAME with some of the more senior members of the server, we're breaking into a shipyard to destroy some artifacts... ...and my suave super-spy blows his very first stealth roll. Bear in mind, this guy had a reputation for making great rolls at critical moments, so much that other players were calling him "Clutch"! Boom, I blow my roll, and a bunch of security drones instantly spot me! Did it get me down? Of course not! We all had commlinks, my teammates were undetected, so I say, "you guys go and get the objective, I'll deal with this SNAFU!", and I take off running, zig-zagging down the most obvious line of retreat, leading the drones away from my team! Then we got a cool, split-party scenario, where I'm dodging and taking pot-shots at security drones, while the rest of the team is moving on to complete the mission! In that way, my bad roll, embarrassing in front of the other players, could still be turned to the team's advantage, and make me look like a good player and a good guy to have on your team in future games! So, a bad roll here or there isn't the end of the world, and can sometimes even be turned to everyone's advantage. :D
I literally just sent this to all my players. We had a big discussion about a week back about how everyone was enjoying the game and several players admitted that there were things that they were wishing was included or I would lean into more. I will admit I was really frustrated and I asked them why nobody told me until that moment considering we had been playing for a month or two at this point? The players sort of just had blank stares as if they didn't realize that was acceptable or something so, even though we had a very thoughtful and thorough discussion, I sent my players this video to reinforce everything we talked about since, maybe they will trust somebody on the internet over their DM XD
The ring turning the bullets into full-sized cannonballs wouldn't even work, either the cannonball gets its full mass back and it just falls to the floor, or it doesn't get its mass back and now it's basically wiffleball.
Hey, this is a really important issue for me and thank you very much for making this video. For me this was not a little thing, this was a group shattering thing. A player of mine decided without telling anyone in the group that he will not ever "whine to the GM". Which in the end translated into "not communicating with the DM". This was a Dark Heresy 2nd edition game. At the beginning of the campaign I only noticed that even though I expressively told them to tell me any issues they have, work with me on their characters and if there's anything they'd like to do or achieve that isn't in 2nd ed, but maybe in previous ones, approach me, even after all this he was less engaged than the others. I tried to put in hooks for their character, but they never seemed to bite, so gradually I started to reach out to them even less so, because I just didn't see the point and thought they were doing okay. This was mostly because in this campaign I started using a LOT of advices from GMs like Matt Mercer, Matt Coleville and You Seth and ALL the other players LOVED it and told me multiple times that this was the best campaign we ever had. The first real open world campaign instead of the singular story driven, railroady ones our group made before. All were happy. Or so I thought. After a year or so I started to notice more and more of these "A-HA" moments, grumpiness and some passive aggression from this player. I knew they didn't agree with me houseruling the game (they were very much of a RAW type of person), but after another houserule suggestion, they sent everyone a long, aggressive letter, about how I, the GM, am ruining everything. Everyone was shocked, I felt broken. Some players came to defend me, but we settled down and I agreed to tweak the system less and we moved on. But the aggressive behaviour kept coming and only after I specifically asked them "do you have a problem with me" did they say "YES". It turned out there were multiple issues in the background, which I didn't know anything about at all, like me creating random loots for the party and he thought that I am specifically not giving them anything. Or me granting the others custom talent (which I told them about at the beginning). So thanks to my suggestion, we sat down 1-on-1, talked a whole day, I said sorry and explained myself. It thought we were good. I was wrong... I think you see where this is going. There were still issues everytime we tried to solve the previous ones. After about a year of the first incident, they left, another one followed because he felt the atmosphere was just bad and they hadn't been enjoying the game for months at that point. The group fell apart. Now I'm not saying I'm not at fault at all, probably should have recognised things beforehand or tried to talk to them more. But I just still can't understand how the group went from "best campaign" to "totally broken" in one year, while all I had were good intentions and openness and literally thousands of hours put into the campaign. Say what you want. It is REALLY important to communicate.
Honestly after the guy wrote that letter you should have thrown him out. Like, I understand not wanting to cause a scene or confront people, but anyone who's willing to resort to something like that BEFORE ever actually speaking to you isn't someone you should have at your table, or...probably even be friends with outside the game either. Some people are not worth it and if you don't deal with that, it can start hurting the rest of the group too. I'm not trying to say that it's all your fault or anything, who knows what MIGHT have happened, after all...and hindsight is 20/20. But sometimes trying to be the nice guy for too long causes more harm than it avoids. Trust me. Sometimes "please don't come back" is the only answer, even if it really really sucks to ever say that to someone.
"If you want to see some more of our stuff, such as game reviews or How To's, or more RPG Philosophy, just..." "Say what you want." "Hit that subscribe button!" "Huh??"
ED: You see a well groomed garden. In the middle, on a small hill, you see a gazebo. ERIC: A gazebo? What color is it? ED: [pause] It's white, Eric. ERIC: How far away is it? ED: About 50 yards. ERIC: How big is it? ED: [pause] It's about 30 ft across, 15 ft high, with a pointed top. ERIC: I use my sword to detect good on it. ED: It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. ERIC: [pause] I call out to it. ED: It won't answer. It's a gazebo. ERIC: [pause] I sheathe my sword and draw my bow and arrows. Does it respond in any way? ED: No, Eric, it's a gazebo! ERIC: I shoot it with my bow. [roll to hit] What happened? ED: There is now a gazebo with an arrow sticking out of it. ERIC: [pause] Wasn't it wounded? ED: OF COURSE NOT, ERIC! IT'S A GAZEBO! ERIC: [whimper] But that was a +3 arrow! ED: It's a gazebo, Eric, a GAZEBO! If you really want to try to destroy it, you could try to chop it with an axe, I suppose, or you could try to burn it, but I don't know why anybody would even try. It's a @#$%!! gazebo! ERIC: [long pause. He has no axe or fire spells.] I run away. ED: [thoroughly frustrated] It's too late. You've awakened the gazebo. It catches you and eats you. ERIC: [reaching for his dice] Maybe I'll roll up a fire-using mage so I can avenge my Paladin.
Also, rings aren't usually depicted as working like that. You have to wear the ring to make it work. That usually requires a living being. Just passing an inanimate object through it won't work. That would be this GM's take on it anyway. Of course if the players were to actually ask if it would work, I might be able to warn them, but... players gonna be players.
And this is the reason my players don't try to pull that one on me. They know that I'll very likely find a way to shoot it down if I don't want it to happen. And the chance of this being the case reaches 100% quickly if I feel that my players tried to "trick" me into something like that. Be upfront about it. Your chances are good that I not only love a creative application of something like that, enough to let even some minor inconvenient facts about physics slide, the game may even change ever so slightly to ensure that your awesome trick works flawlessly and saves the day. I guess every GM loves players who have creative ideas and these are the most memorable moments in a game, and things that will be talked about for years with a "remember when we..." lead in. But they're only fun if they don't blow up the plot in the process. Else nobody will want to remember it, the trick that outmaneuvered and unhinged the plot rather than the big bad end monster.
I think the "Aha!" moments from players are often fostered by GMs who hear the player's plans and then cause them to fail, like they change situations to counter the plans or make npcs act as if they know what the players are trying to do, or just flat out have the plan not work. Nothing is worse than coming up with a cunning plan and then having it fail through no actual rolling, but rather the situation suddenly being different simply to counter the plan. One example from a game was our rogue sneaking off to gather intel on some enemies, and being clever about it by using treetops to stay up out of sight. She had to roll stealth, at which she excelled, and rolled between 19 to 26 each time. However the bad guys always spotted her. Every time. It was incredibly frustrating, since it didn't feel like they were rolling well, but rather the DM just wanted them to get spotted because they had a specific solution in mind. You feel like, "why bother making plans if they're never going to work?"
I honestly haven't run into this behavior much with players, but when the DM does it, it's deadly. I remember one guy who just dropped us into a town with no stated goals. So we just started wandering around (much like the guy in your opening skit..."What's in this building?" over and over again). But we kept coming up empty. No hooks, no NPCs with anything interesting to say, nothin'. Finally somebody got fed up and said "Will you please tell us where the adventure is so we can get on with it?" I think he was hoping for some kind of Critical Role-level improv from us, but he was no Matt Mercer...
This is a good point. I like player driven games, but they need hooks to get the PCs started - opportunities to gain money or status, or events the characters would want to get involved in etc. Even when the wheels are rolling the GM needs to keep introducing complications to their plans and new challenges. You can't put them in a void and expect them to just spontaneously create an entire campaign's worth of content.
I love it when a player asks an NPC "what do you got to sell me?" which is how I hear them asking me the GM "what does he got?" That is a role-play rabbit hole that sometimes leads to good stories.
Drives me nuts that it takes me less than one round to find a problem with the cannon rifle: antimagic doesn't dispel ongoing spells, it suppresses them. The cannonball starts to return to normal size for the instant it's passing through the ring, then resumes being bullet-sized.
About the cannon/gun: You can disable it with using physics. The ball when friend has a certain kinetic energy. It retains the same energy after passing the ring and "growing". The result would be a big but slow flying cannonball, next to useless for the guy with the gun.
There are a gazillion arguments that can be used against it. I can add: How fast does the "growing" occur? Too fast, and it expands to break the ring from the inside. Too slow, and it has hit its target while still being small. etc. I think it is a wrong approach to try to come up with such arguments against it. Instead, we have to look at why the player come up with the idea in the first place. There can be several reasons. For example: in the Disaster & Death game (D&D for short) weapons are as lethal as dull toothbrushes, thus players may wish for a more effective weapon that can prevent combats from always taking up the entire session. Or Is the game full of "stupid magic" already, and thus the players just want to add more to it? Usually due to the GM already is using the poor "because... magic..." excuse for things that make no sense. In both cases, it is not about preventing the players from doing it. Instead, it is about solving the underlying problem.
@@larsdahl5528 Let me say it so, if the GM does not want it, we can stop it. And if he is good, he can give a covincing argument. Which makes these gotcha stories pointless. But at the end, it should be a game with, not against each other.
[05:16] "Some folks are so afrait to say what they want, that the get mad at others when they say what they want and even go length to shut them down." That's my addition to Madonna's Quote based on mypersonal experiance. You know, if I had a Town of houses or a library of books and only a few of them named at all, I do only minimal work to add some more details when asked directly. Instead after the 5ft house or book I would address a third player and have them decide what is in there. If the one player keeps asking I redirect the question to each other player on the table one-by-one up to the asking player at last. This way everyone can get involved in the worldbuilding. And the asking player might get a hint that, if he keeps asking, he himself is forced to answer. That's also what I want to teach players: storytelling games are a collaborative effort. [14:17] "Maybe they mentioned a long time back...remind your gamemaster...highly skilled at forgetting things." Tell me if you want to hear my story of the "Kackstein".
You really nailed it, Mr. Skorkowsky, I've had a few players like this over many years . What's sad is that when you weed out these players and just game with your favorite players, you end up with one or two players. :(
Many times you can train the bad ones to become good. With issues like this, maybe the player is paranoid because they used to have a really mean/adversarial DM. So you show by example what a good game is, and they stop doing the bad stuff. It won't always work, but often it will. If you "weed out" the players instead of helping them, it just confirms their bad experiences, and you lose a potentially great player who just needed some guidance.
I loved your point towards the end was on point! Our best adventures are when players tell me "I want a magic belt" or "I want to find my parents." Then I can tailor a few sessions around that. It's GM GOLD!!!!! Thanks for all your videos, Seth. you're the best.
Yes, it seems surprising that if we see role-playing as a communication sport, then many fail at communication! I think... Due to I have many years experience... that there are people in the hobby who are used to withhold information, as they are in reality war-gamers and thus know that the less they let the enemy know, the better off they are! Yes, it is tough for many to admit, but: There are painfully many wargamers who claim they are role-playing.
@@larsdahl5528 I get your point, but I think your concept is too binary. There is a lot of reasons people don't communicate, being a war gamer is a very minor one. Most of them are far more likely to be related to out of game things, like personality type and personal history, this particularly applies to new groups. Trust is hard, being laughed at hurts and it's easy to get scared in a social situation. Not everyone is an over sharing extrovert.
@11:00 Re: "will that work" I had a GM who always said "you can try anything" but if we tried anything remotely creative he seemed to take joy in then having it blow up in our faces to the point no one ever wanted to think outside the box at all anymore. So hidden intentions can be adversarial on either side.
If it was something rather outlandish, and they would have time to prepare, I would ask the player to roll an appropriate check - Arcana, Investigation, History, perhaps Nature or Medicine, depending on what they're trying to do - to see if they find something on if this has been tried before. In a high magic setting I can totally imagine thesis papers like "Failed magical experiments and what we can learn from them". As a DM, not every idea should be allowed or rejected outright, and "your character has no idea if this will work" can be a valid response. Just don't go into it with the mindset of "how can I f*** the group over", either.
Related Pet Peeve: When a player and or groups asks for a specific style of campaign so they can run specific characters for that campaign so you design and run something based around that but your players make entirely different characters as if for a different game entirely despite you talking to them about building the campaign specifically to address their desires and keep reminding them that the upcoming game is to address what they asked for. Then after they total party wipe themselves off the map and decide they want a new campaign instead of that one they reiterate the previous request because “no GM has run that kind of game for them and that’s what they’ve really been after.”
Here I will recommend GM-assisted character creation. - Thus the GM can ensure the characters fit the setting and at the same time adjust the setting so it fits the characters. If the players make their characters commit collective suicide. Then it is time to go for another campaign structure; here I think a one-shots revolver campaign may be worth going for. ("Revolver" -> The GM position rotates between the players, so everyone GMs something. "One-shot" is a short story that can be finished in a session or two.)
One reason I love FFG Star Wars is my players are now well trained to flip a destiny point to ensure there is the thing/npc/location the want right where they need it! 🤣
This has me realize if I make a town where I do want to know where everything is and it’s all established, I should make pre-established Flex Areas. Like for shops, have a bazaar that can slot in random things they players want that I’d have no issue offering.
There CAN be a third reason (and a healthy one) for the "Gotcha" thing... At some Tables, SO LONG AS it's kept to a reasonable layer of subtlety and sub-plots, a little "Mental Chess" with the GM (and even the other Players) can be fine... It shouldn't interfere with the Game itself... just setting up gags and bits... the fun being the surprise (and how often you can earn "the face") along the way... I've even had GM's that would reward in-game chess with (usually) flashy doo-dah, which is generally cheesy crap for PC's to show off, and rarely worth more than a +1 or so on whatever... just unusual crap... and occasionally even something like inspiration. I've let the GM forget about a ring with 9 Fireball Charges at level 12 for long enough that I could completely NUKE a Grand Wazeer in front of his King during a wizard's duel... as challenged... GM even neglected to ask "What ring is that?"... made it kind of extra funny at the time... AND for f***'s own sakes, READ THE ROOM, folks. This kind of thing obviously doesn't go well at every Table. SO you GM's out there can relax. It's just a different flavor of "in-game antics" that some of us enjoy peppering into the Game... BUT number 1 priority is still THE GAME... and number 2 is FUN FOR ALL, including the GM. If he or she simply isn't up to a Layer of Mental Chess with me, I'll back off... I can still get gags and riffs in the Game and have PLENTY of fun at open and authentic RP... BUT slowly ticking off or tallying out the X-men or DC-Comics cast I can "accidentally create" in mid-Campaign while the GM slowly picks up on the plots... can be kind of fun.., Even a tad more fun when I start getting "the face" from a GM who just knows "I should've seen that coming"... BUT no... NEVER EVER let it derail the Campaign. That's not cool for anyone... If you're being outright too secretive about "this round of Gotcha" to get the Game itself moving forward, you're being toxic... and probably too ambitious. Back off and just admit you won't get it. I've been "caught" by the GM, too... It kinda sucks to get "the call-out"... like... "Yeah, I see you building... who was next? Batman??? Yeah..." You just shrug it off with "Damn..." and move on. It still (usually) earns a chuckle out of the rest of the Table, when they "catch up"... though sometimes a "relative noob" (that's new to our Table) might need some backstory filled in... AND there's not even usually a reason to utter denial, though that does happen sometimes "out of spite" (just ribbing between us)... ;o)
Or the energy imparted to the small cannon ball is still the same when it grows and is heavy. So it instantly falls out of the air, cause it's not the weight of a bullet anymore.
Player: starts laying out a weirdly disjointed and complicated plan GM: "At the risk of sounding like a boy band, TELL MY WHY" I've actually had a terrible GM in the past who would ruin our plans on purpose. GMs like that aren't worth the time & trust. You need to leave and find a better group. (And then trust the GM in the new group, because carrying that distrust to every table will just make you the problem. Most GMs are better than that!)
