I had a party TPK themselves before... (don't ask.) They ended up playing as ghosts of themselves and got to see what it's like from the saint's point of view when they get summoned and called to fight for summoners and the likes, and when they weren't 'busy', exploring the underworld and following the plot I dropped there. It turned out for them that their underworld game tied directly into the world of the living.
I completely agree about letting the ridiculous happen for the sake of entertainment, but I've found that there a point where if it happens too often, it starts to lose its effect. Or detracts from the immersion in the world or story.
If they have the means to do so, why wouldn't you? And I don't mean that to say you should, I mean that as to actually think about what reason there would be to not let them do that.
my group found that the most fun that we have, is when the ridiculous happens. We had a session where our npc wizard created a portal for the group. long story short we ended up destroying the Star trek enterprise because our rogue was possessed by a demon that went beserk
These are all the best videos I've seen on GMing. I'm a new GM and these are absolutely indispensable. My style is heavy on the "let's have fun first, and read fine print later", and I'm glad to have found an ally in that. I've watched and read a lot of other things about how to be a good GM and most leave me saying "well, duh, just be a good lighthearted person", but every single one of your videos has me scrambling for paper so I can make notes.
That's awesome feedback man! Welcome to the table and thank you for the kind words. Let us know how your games go and if the tips help! And the fun is the key! Always the key!
I just finished watching the video on how to start an adventure and realized that what I have prepared is very similar to #6 "The Prologue". All of the PCs are at a concert but do not know each other. They suddenly need to roll initiative and are attacked by porcelain shells of people I call Husks that seemingly blink to everyone in the crowd and stab them to death with crude obsidian knives. The PCs are taken by surprise, try to fight, but the Husks eventually stab them all to death after rolling VERY highly. All the PCs are stabbed in different parts (eye, throat, heart, stomach, etc) and outright die. They wake up weeks later in a hospital with appropriate scars that give them small buffs to certain attributes - stabbed in the heart, +1 constitution. Stabbed in the eye, +1 to all perception checks. Etc. The head surgeon interrogates them all at once and is trying to determine the common feature that allowed them to survive this terrorist attack when so many hundreds did not. I'm very excited to see how they handle it, and with your tips I think I'll be fine. I have two groups formed that'll start late next week and I'll do my best to come back and relay how they did. Thanks again!
>.< Im a new Dm, and I started a group with all new players the most exp that anyone had was an older player played 2.0 when it first came out. Naturally I found a free module online and started the players off on that. I started getting into a "lazy mode" and bought the 5e starter campaign. We've gotten some "High Five" moments but nothing so far as captivated them. Ive decided " from watching your videos to just wing it we are already on a path form here on out we shall see where it goes thanks man .
+robert goodwin I'd recommend giving your players fun things to play with like boots of the spider which let them climb walls and traverse ceilings and you should also include bizarre encounters like for example after cleaning a bandit camp you find a talking mule who tells her was stolen from his owner who happens to be a wizard.
So I'm newly watching this as a longish time player and I'm about to GM my first Dungeon World game, if you have never seen this game.. you need to, it sounds right up your alley
Thank you so much. I have a very argumentative group and they love to bog my game down with rules and physics just so they can win. This week i am putting my foot down, and if need be ending the session early. Somethings gotta give...
Last time my 2 players interacted only one of them walked away alive. The other one has fallen in a mighty PvP confrontation and had his eyes plucked out by the 1st player, who later preserved those eyes in a jar of formaldehyde. Nevertheless, everyone had fun. Even the player, whose character just got killed and mutilated.
I had a realy good experience as a game master, where i just gave information to the player succeding in their roll. So when someone wanted to know wether the "medicine" is toxic he or she would send me a privat message with their diceroll and i would respond with a privat message. That way the whole game became a new dynamic. Players didnt knew everything and actually asked and argued with one another in a roleplay fassion. For me it was so great to see how the typical metagameplayers suddenly became so much more engaged with their character and the actual situation.
As an amateur archer, I want to note that the arrows have Plenty of force, but the it's the shaft and feathers job is to keep the arrow straight. However the point may break off and ricochet. It also depends on the kind of point. It would need to be rounded, but most are not. Normally in a ricochet the arrow goes at a much more obtuse path than a bullet ricochet, usually coasting along the ground and burying itself. Normally the arrow breaks and the tip is lost. It's a great hobby and I highly recommend it. >:)
Being part of the Monday and Thursday group it is quite interesting to see how some players interpret the given info. and most fun reinterpret the info... sort of a broken telephone giving over only the info. they found important or purposefully withholding info. which brought up questions later as to the loyalties, drives and some confusion... I am a fan of non-metagaming special when players have apposing goals or values, both trying to play a subtile game so as not to show their hand... that's where good players shine though ;)
+TrollDust Detox This is true. And one of the greatest weapons you have as a GM in your arsenal. Use that broken telephone line to help develop your own schemes ;) I also prefer non-metagame play, but that can be tricky.
Actually I saw a video about a man sleeping in a ditch being killed by an arrow that slid along the ground near a practice field. The anecdote was from a medieval coroner's inquest.
Thank you for this! As only a moderately experienced players in 5e I recently got 3 veteran gamers who have been playing for decades now join my 5e group. Although they haven't played 5e at all, their attitudes on the game intimidate me.
Regarding reality vs rules. I see it like that's why we have rule books for a game at our tables and not books about physics from the closest university. That's just a thought that I like. :)
I agree with you 100% I've rand DND games that are purely narrative, no dice ever were involved and those games were some of my best games ever played. it forced the PCs to be intelligent with their moves, rp and also understanding when they couldn't win a game. So much fun everyone should try it at least once!
I've played a lot of games purely narrative style, don't really enjoy them all that much. I find that they often lack structure and instead of strategy and understanding the mechanics and weighing risks, you just have to use your empathy to figure out what kind of actions the GM likes to be successful and win challenges. Not saying it's wrongBadFun to enjoy the narrative, just that I prefer my rulebooks and dice when I'm a player.
I was being interviewed last night for Fuzzy Dice - an American gaming channel - and that exact topic popped up - if the table is a bunch of players who like narrative... the game should be narrative. If they like rules and rolls, that's what it should be. It only becomes a challenge if someone in the mix is the opposite. Either option, or a mix between are all valid fun ways of enjoying the genre. So Agreed!
+Ville Peltoniemi just sounds like you had bad experience with it. i let my players do what they wish in my games as long as it makes sense and works. ex) a short sword would never cut through a breast plate, but then my player asked if he could use his short size to get low and peirce underneath the layers of plates. not what i expected but makes sense :) dice i wish worked well but they dont always im sorry but no matter how hard you hit a fully armored giant with a spear its not penetrating 2inch thick armor but the rolls and dice would alow it because of the rules.
I agree with you on some points in this. And in fact, a lot of the time DMs should give some sort of chance or interesting way around something (kind of like in your stealthy player example). However, I like to play my fantasy games with magic and a lot of fantasy elements, while certain things like physics work normally. The player characters can still do extraordinary things, but I just wanted to point out that it doesn't have to be black and white, and you can mix in reality even with fantasy games. I would never say you could bounce an arrow off a cave wall, unless something was breaking the world to let them do that (for instance, maybe the arrows are enchanted to let them do that). Also, I don't count in like wind and the exact archs of arrows or anything like that (that's way too much!), but I still prefer to have realism elements.
A great option my GM provides is "blaze of glory" If you die anticlimacticly you can choose to not die then but MUST pick a time or place to die before you level.
Great video and series altogether. Personally, when it comes to rolls vs. story I always insist to my players that dice are running the game, while subtly fudging and waiving when unlucky rolls start mucking things up. It keeps tension high while allowing me to maintain the rule of cool.
realism is important in a game. I like to use a rule of thumb that if a TV show or movie can do it than its OK. If what a character wants would only be possible in the most trippy acid dream, that's probably a no go.
Am I the only one that loves DM's like this? "Well you're 120ft away from the target, and there is a wind blowing 5 miles an hour across the bridge you are standing on, and the humidity is 72% so you're modifier is +3"??
Good video, solid advice! While I agree we can suspend some minor pieces of reality for "rule of cool" or flavor, DM's still need to keep their world within its own bounds. So if, for instances, physics perform similarly to our own world, players have the expectation it will perform the same in the DM world. We have to be careful that when we *do* let shifts break from the "established" reality we do not ruin the suspension of disbelief. So if all of a sudden, someone banks arrows off of cave walls, does it still work within the rules of *your* world? Ultimately that's up to you as the DM. It's not an easy balance to always strike. :)
Yes - that's a very valid point. The trick I find is to read your players. If they are having fun and responding to the way you're handling the world then you are doing it right. It is not easy.
I'd advocate to first build solid foundation in reality and then decide whether or not you are gonna deviate from that for more fun, better narrative or simply for streamlining. You can, and probably should, always make bigger world than what your players see.
I would love a player vs player video. In one campaign I play in a player has a tendency to die (might have the Wheaton Curse). But having new charcters all the time he is constantly introduced to the party (a very mixed batch) but none of us have died and he has 7 times. He tends to play a smarmy character which was in direct conflict with the party and our first meetings usually ended up in a slight conflict, before becoming party members. Also we have had our mixed batch of players strive for control in opposing ways, conflicting ways, but all for the same purpose. Often the players just cave so the story can move along, but everyone has been both victim and culprit of this, i'd love to hear your ideas on PVP
+Seth Weber Added to the list - PVP and it's consequences! It's an interesting idea and one that may be of value as a tension builder, but potentially could unbalance a game! Thanks for the suggestion!
listening to the arrow bouncing off stuff part reminded me about one game i played with my friends where my ranger was getting ready to shoot an enemy with an arrow and i crit failed and hit my friend's barbarian character in the butt. we had a decent laugh at that since he was right past the guy i was aiming for.
"I have taken your comments and view into account" "You are right, and I have thought about it!" - I now have a judgement! - ""THIS IS HOW IT IS!"" (This is only if you have truly listened and read btw!)
My Rogue Trader group love to talk with each other ingame and share information frequently, but they are prone to meta game some things that only one character should know. to work around this I've let them know that their characters tend to leave their radios on at all times and forget that, so they end up sharing secret information or embarrassing information accidentally. this leads to humorous conversations.
The problem with players who want to discuss every little rule which might be in thier favour is not that simply to solve. Somehow the players are at the mercy of the Gamemaster and therefore the rules have a meaning for the internal justice. If you just punish the players, who want to use thier rights you can harm the player's trust. Its a complex problem but my tip would be: earn the player's trust first and nobody will interrupt you.
I totally get you. But I just feel like you take away all of the tension when you try to make an excuse to change the roll of a die. I think rolling out in the open and always ALWAYS going with the roll is crucial for the trolling to keep being tense. Death is of course always an option but that just adds even more tension everytime someone reach a near-death state
I have run many games and played in many game and I agree with all but one thing sometimes you get groups that prefer to stick to the rules good or bad life or death yes they love the story but don't take it to heart if they fail a role and die in fact they find it quite humorous to laugh at the poor guy who failed his save and gets burned to a crisp. In the end it really is all about the fun and for some groups being rules junkies is what they live by. But of course as the GM all is up to you and you decide how the rules work in your world
I like the material here, although if I'm understanding that you are speaking about roll "fudging" wherein DM fiat runs the game basically out of their head. Some parties, in fact everyone I've had the chance to play with, get very irritated when it feels like the DM is pushing things around. It gives a feeling like they can only do things the DM wants them to do, which isn't necessarily the best way to go with all parties. The tremendously popular Critical Role channel shows a DM who is well-beloved and often authorizes rolls that make sense but are contrary to his particular wishes, and he often indicates that he's as surprised by the outcome as anyone else. I don't think it to be the same as the dreaded Railroad, but if I feel like the DM is going to have me roll and then decide what happens in their head regardless, then I'm not actually playing in the sense that I so desire in RPGs. In contrast, if a DM says I can roll and I have faith that they have set a difficulty equal to their conviction that it's possible or feasible that I could do whatever it is I am trying to do, then I know I can change the world in a real way. I know that II can improve my chances by explaining myself or altering plans rather than simply feeling around until I find a solution the DM finds exciting, knowing he can simply screw me if I try something he doesn't think is good for the story. I'm interested in your input on this because I sincerely doubt you fudge rolls on a constant basis, and I doubt I've understood you fully. But the DM's I've had the most fun watching or playing with seem to create the world, spell out what's going on, but they don't so much tell a story as they simply are the "player"(participant at the table) who acts on behalf of the world and its inhabitants. I play Hoss the Half-Orc Pugilist and my DM plays the entire world he inhabits. I'd like to see whether you play that way or if your approach is as different as It seems to be, and perhaps why you chose one over another. Also, I'd love to see your take on getting a game together, in the sense of a first time DM going from a person in possession of the DMG in their system of choice to a person capably managing a game with 3-6 people in it. I very much want to start a game, because worldbuilding, game systems and narrative are all tremendously fun to me, and also because every game I've played fell to shambles in 2 months when the DM stopped having the same days off as everyone else. Great work on these, by the way. Combined with the aforementioned Critical Role and the work of Chris Perkins, I've learned a lot about managing a game that I might have fumbled when I finally get some folks to the table.
+Josh Rowlison To be compared to Critical Roll is an honour indeed, thank you. So I think perhaps if you head on over to Bacon RPG you can see me playing. I may have been too emphatic on my roll fudging. I don't fudge the rolls and pretend I rolled a 20 when I've rolled a one. I look at what the dice have shown me, and then adjust modifiers and things to compensate, or work out how it affects my story. The dice still play a major roll, and I usually go along with it. I just don't let the dice completely dictate every outcome. I'll either change the modifiers, or change the outcome. Should it be death? Or just permenent disfigurement? Should it be the dragon kills everyone? Or just seriously hurts them all and takes them prisoner? I'm off to run my weekly game now, so if you want more info please let's engage. This is what's it's all about! :)
+How to be a Great Game Master I'm greatly encouraged by what you say, I had it in my head for a moment that the rolls were of no import. I see how perhaps preventing a luck based TPK is worth the risk of interference. Perhaps because you know yourself and/or have the implicit trust of your players, rolling THEN deciding is of no concern. Certainly I could accept it from a person who demonstrates a sort of gaming integrity and concern for the game being good for everyone. But I still imagine a situation, perhaps due to my less-than-stellar experiences with DMs, where I'd prefer to know that the modifiers were in the open and the dice made the call, not because my DM is incompetent but because I don't yet trust their ability to stop muddling in my fate when they don't need to. Perhaps because of my video game past and lack of RPG experience, I desire to play in a game where the world is what it is and I am sure that my victory or, in less desirable cases, survival, came as a result of my actions. I feel like it's possible for a game to be more of me trying to find what the DM wants me to find rather than solving problems and only needing the DM to assent that it's possible or feasible to do what I want. Not that I think you run such games, the small bit of BaconRPG I've yet viewed puts that to rest, but I'm curious as to how you keep agency at the forefront when on some level the DM can always fudge. My best friend and soon to be DM partner is easily turned off if he feels like the DM is going to push his rolls around at will, and both of us can get that impression quickly when stuff we want to do mysteriously becomes impossible in the face of common sense.
Maybe I should do a video on this as it seems to trouble you greatly :) And it's good. It shows dedication to the game. My roll fudging is on a roll to roll basis. But let me give you an example: In an upcoming episode of Bacon my players take on an NPC who is much higher level than they are. But I rolled poorly and they rolled exceptionally well. I didn't fudge the rolls because the look of amazement in their eyes told me this is how it should play out. Later however they were interrogating same individual and I rolled a 1 - he would have spilled the beans and told them everything - about three or four months of game time early. I am not going to let a dice roll break the mystery that this character represents. So instead of having him just spill his guts I then rolled again. For what? Players don't get to know. For me it was whether he was smart enough to realize his situation. Which he succeeded on. So instead of giving them what they wanted he caved in and tried to recruit them. That way he could still 'fail' his check, but in a story situation. Now the players have a link to a man of mystery to explore in the far future. Much better than just being told X,Y, and Z. Now they have something to look forward to. Does that make more sense?
Indeed, and that rings very similar to the style I pick up in every DM I watch. Some won't "fudge' the roll, rather they find an excuse to give them another one that they statistically are unlikely to also fail. So a major bad guy flubbed his roll to maintain footing on the edge of a ship when attacked, suddenly he gets a roll to reestablish his footing and perhaps another to land a grappling hook and stop his fall if he continues to fail. The logic is that hes smart and quick and he isn't the major bad guy for nothing, but the purpose is obviously that he needs to be around longer than one roll. I hope I haven't badgered you too long with this, I'm just very interested in the issue of adjudication because it sets tone and defines the relationship between players and the DM from the start. If I get this wrong I could lose the trust of my only prospective group. Essentially where I live it's stupid hard to get a game going and I don't know how many chances I'll get to do this right, God knows my chances to even be a player have been infrequent and not successful. As I said, I'm trying to get myself prepared to try this, I'm looking to buy the 5e books because they seem to be user-friendly. And as well, I'm looking to benefit from the wisdom of DMs with experience to do it right from the start.
Not badgering at all - that's why this channel is there! checkout Greatgamemaster.com - my website for some links on pretty cool books to buy or own if you just getting into it. Keep us posted on how it goes and don't stress! As a first time GM my suggestion would be to stick to the rolls. Learn how to read your players first before you begin to fudge numbers or invent more rolls.
But i have no giant creatures that breathe fire yet! Only flying people who can alter time, people who can stretch and embiggen themselfes, a guy who can such your live out, somebody who shoots light and a guy with an armor he creates from his own blood! (And a few minor other things.)
To play Devil's Advocate somewhat: Having magic does not necessarily "excuse" all other breaks from reality. There's an important difference between "fantastical" and "unrealistic". A guy flying around in blue pajamas shooting laser beams out his eyes is fantastical, said person disguising himself from his closest friends using a pair of completely normal glasses is unrealistic. To stop playing devil's advocate: There are nonetheless very good reasons why you might insert breaks from reality in this fashion. Convenience is a good one (one-size fits all armor, for example). Also some things are too cool to not let happen. Or if the campaign or narrative simply demand it.
I thought I was his advocate... damn it! lol. You make some good points even if you are raining on the comic book fanboys parade. Personally I like to make sure there is a practical reason for the effect. Thanks for voicing your thoughts!
How to be a Great Game Master Well, to be fair, Superman's disguise has two things going for him: 1) It's actually more realistic than most people assume it would be. It's actually really easy to disguise yourself from people who aren't looking for you-all you have to do is look kind of inconspicuous and nobody will realize it's you. It just wouldn't work on people who know both Kent and Superman. 2) Putting a mask on Superman tend to looks kind of dumb.
Well, on the whole adjudication and "Does it make sense it your head, if it does, make the call and don't get bogged down in a debate.": I have to, to some degree, disagree. Trouble is that some DMs are still thinking of a game like D&D as adversarial. I've known a DM who sometimes changed the rules mid-fight, so that his NPC couldn't lose and straight up murdered a character. This wasn't for any reason other than him not having counted on the fact that his NPC might lose and being unwilling to accept it. The character HAD done his due diligence and knew exactly what he was walking into; Except for when a DM fiat killed him. My point is this: The rules are there to make sure that everyone has a baseline for how the world works. It's not the DM's game, it belongs to all the people playing in it, regardless of their role, be it Player or DM. Of course the DM must have a certain amount of power to make rulings. But there's a big difference between making a ruling and Ruling (as in trying to make yourself a king). So make the rules fit BEFORE it's too late for the players to take it into account. Or let them change things accordingly. The reason I think it's so important to qualify this, is that some DMs don't understand this and they should at least have the perspective explained. PS: In the above case I talked about (with the DM who thought no rules applied to him or his NPCs unless he felt like it) all the players had enough in the end, and he no longer has any players willing to let him DM.
As a novice GM running a very complicated ruleset (Shadowrun) because my group likes the setting and I don’t have time to rewrite the rule book, my general rule is every player should know all the rules of their own class and track their own positive modifiers (and I’ll pitch in if I feel some negative modifiers were overlooked or I know with certainty they’re wrong on something). The idea is not to try and keep every table for every role, weapon, and situation in my head all at once but rather to let the players track their own positives and have the knowledge of their own roles to help with adjudication if I can’t remember something. Do you think this is reasonable or do you foresee a problem with that approach?
I'm hardly an experienced GM, but I can't say I agree with this. I like my rpgs to be more of a simulation, to be fair, I like all my fiction to be realistic, but rpgs especially. Botching the perfectly aimed swing at the head of the demon king to save the world or whatever is dynamic and fun. Of course, you should give the players opportunities to recover or compensate for bad dice rolls. Less Lord of the Rings, more A Song of Ice and Fire. This is just a taste thing though.
That is the beautiful thing about our game! We can have realistic games and total fantasy games, we can have game where the dice matter, and games where they don't. As long as we find like minded people to play with, we are golden, and as long as we don't force our ways onto others, we are doubly golden!
HI I've watched, and was impressed by, a couple of your other videos, but this one was not as good. While the video did contain good advice, looking up rules after the session for instance, the video was muddled and didn't explain several concepts about adjudication. Some topics I think you should of focused more on are: Defining adjudication Why do we use dice to determine outcomes in rpg's When should you call for a roll of the dice I am interested in knowing what you think about those topics.
+James Conroy Firstly let me say thank you for watching the videos, secondly thank you for sharing your thoughts. Yes. This was the third video we made and is not as strong as it should have been. I love the topic ideas and your two questions about why and when to use dice is a good one. I've a very liberal dice user. So watch this space and I'll try to fit in those questions in an upcoming episode. My list is pretty long but I will do it. Again thank you for the feedback, and I hope you continue to watch the show and continue to provide your feedback - we can only get better.
The best part about this is how many times you say 'unless' there are NO hard and fast rules in D&D even the Hard and fast rule that the rules are not hard and fast. EVERYTHING is malleable.
since january i starting to sharp myself to be a dm, in my groups of friends no one knows how to play and in that time me neither, i have to double my efforts and prepare material to study and teach, i learn the game, the dynamics, the narrative and the system, but most of my hard times or my biggest doubt were defeat by you, i hope to be a better dm for my players, myself and people like you who help others, thank you sir, i hope you make more videos and teach me more, i also have a question, my players tends to follow they own desire, and i have to create common interest everytime, but they need to be apparent, otherwise they will split again, that is so much improvisation work for me and kill the mistery quickly (the good point is that once they're hook, the work as a team) actually i have 2 questions, 1- how i can improve or promote teamwork without making the rewards so obvious? (i know i just can say "stop being assholes" but i dont want to kill the fun, and is kinda fun) and 2- what others hooks i can use apart from money, objects, powerful enemys and the whole "you're a hero for saving us" (they have slowly taking interest in the history and the world i create, i have follow some of your instrution to villain building and it works, but they're still to weak to fight them, unprepared and once the menace disappear so does their motivation) sorry if broken english, and the lenght, hope you answer me.
Hello, and well done for learning the game yourself! Keep going! As to your question rewards are difficult but I will do a video for you to maybe help! And as for your question on hooks what system are you using? DnD 5th Edition has a great system for generating them. Let me know and I'll see how I can help you!
the dice doesnt ruin anything, bad DM-ing does. i admit the dnd/pathfinder systems unlike other games dont take much into account a PC's skillsets and talents and leave a lot of room for chaos and hazard to rampage, at least at low lvl, but most of the times the story is ruined by a fail roll is because the DM didnt think things through when he designed the encounter: like the difficulty of the task/chalenge, or failing to give the PC a proper bonus to the skill/check required, or not giving the group more ways to solve the problem and advance the story. its that freaking DM arrogance and over confidence in his amazing ability to improv (amazing is how many DM's think they have it), rather then rely on preparation and putting some thought into it they blurt out an obstacle with one solution that usually requires an above average dice roll so that means less than 50% chance of success because they cant be bothered to learn about how skills work and a few examples of difficulty ratings for skill/ability checks, and then they are surprised and frustrated cuz the PC failed and now the story cant continue, cuz the heroes are just standing there looking stupid in awkward silence staring with puppy eyes at the thing they cant climb because they all broke their legs or an NPC who refuses to open the door or give them the info or whatever. I dont know if anybody noticed but in the pathfinder DM guide as an example climbing a brick wall doesnt require a natural 20! with points in climb skill and decent strenght even a guy in fullplate can climb it with an average roll ; and dont even get me started on the take 10 and take 20 options cuz im the only guy on this planet that read about them or remembered them! to anybody who read the book it should be known that rogues dont get spoted except by special creatures with special senses in special circumstances (like when the rogue messed up his stealth roll while sneaking past some blindsight/scent monster), and also stealth and perception checks arent rolled for at every step. A perception roll of 20 doesnt beat the rogues stealth roll of 9 if the rogue adds his +12 modifier for stealth and the guy searching for him adds his perception of 0; natural 20 counts as auto success only in combat, another thing all DM forget or never knew in the first place. I could go on and on... learn the rules is my point.
I disagree with you about the rules and dice. Dnd is fun because you can fuck up. And all of my friends that play Dnd agree. We once had a 3 week session end because of one lvl 1 goblin. The party was lvl 4-5 and stumbled on a sleeping goblin. The rouge decided to kill him in his sleep but rolled a 1 so he accidentally stabbed himself in the foot and let out a noise that woke up the goblin. The fight started. The whole fight the PCs missed and the goblin almost always hit. In the end the goblin was almost dead fighting the last alive PC. They ended up killing each other. The game ended. The whole group was amazed, exited and laughing at the absurdness. We all had fun and started a new session this time playing as evil mercenaries.
Sometimes I have trouble coming up with suitable punishments for my players mistakes. example: I had 3 players get trapped under a giant boulder about to fall, 40ft above them, and instead of killing them all I gave them a chance to make a dodge out from under it. I couldn't think of a suitable way to do this, either roll or narrative. Should this be a simple Dex save vs the boulders d20? I couldnt think of a easy way to roll for it, so I just narrated that the slowest of the group got his foot pulverized. Of course I could have killed all 3 for their stupidity of walking into a super obvious trap, but that didn't feel good for the story. Plus I always like to give a "last chance" roll, before a character gets in a life or death situation. I am a new DM and I enjoy coming up with ways for my players to narrowly escape death. I think those are the funnest and most tense situations in DnD, and always look to create them. But it is a fine line to walk. The narrower the escape, the more likely they get killed. A razors edge between awesomeness and awfulness.
+jordanstead We all face this problem. And I think how you handled it was fun. I would throw in a Reflex Save, a Perception roll, a Dexterity roll etc - the more rolls you give them the more tension you will create. And IF they fail ALL those rolls then it's game over. I did have a group of players drop a mountain on their characters accidentally, and only two of the four survived...
haha yeah, I think I am just having trouble abstracting these situations into a roll-able form of escape. I suppose it will come with experience. For now I will just have to narrate their escapes.Thanks for the reply! :)
+jordanstead If you don't just want to kill them, you could make it more about something that's important to them: "You have the time to jump away. But the cute puppy you brought along is so fazinated by a flower, that he didn't notice the rock. If you want to save him, it will be clutch and I ned to see a good roll to get you both out of there alive." Something like that could be a punishment without just killing them.
true. One thing I ended up doing was one of the characters lost his magic weapon. It got stuck and crushed by the boulder, and he couldnt get it in time.
I think the advice regarding death is problematic. If you don't want the dice to dictate character death - why not use a system where this is the case? In Fate, for instance, players always have the opportunity to "lose on their own terms". By staying in the conflict, players are saying "I'm willing to risk my character's life over this". This is also the case in Dogs in the Vineyard, for instance. And in Apocalypse World, the result of bad rolls is almost always up to the MC. Using a system which allows random meaningless events to kill your character and saying "no, I'm not allowing that, I'll use various tricks to help save the characters" is effectively saying the system is poorly designed. Which, granted, may be the case, but I don't think that's the advice you want to give novice GMs. Novice GMs shouldn't house rule - they should pick a system which does what they want to do.
You make a very good case, and normally I'd agree with you - with the exception that my point is about making the game fun. A novice GM who remains tied to the rules rather than the story is doomed to run dull campaigns that are mechanical and devoid of the wonder of storytelling in my opinion. If players are making continuously bad choices or flaunting death, then I advocate death by dice roll.
I just think this arbitrariness is part of what D&D is about. It's not a game whose sole focus is story (I mean specifically D&D, not RPGs in general). The newer editions are not quite as hardcore in this regard as the older ones and various old-school clones that exist these days, but it's still there. Personally, it's not something I like much myself - but that's why I don't play D&D. But I'm not saying that any other style isn't fun. I mean, I don't get what's there to enjoy in old-school dungeon crawling, but some people evidently enjoy that, so good for them. For them, ignoring dice rolls to save characters would ruin the entire experience. There are just so many different games out there that do so many different things that we don't need to shoehorn every possible style of gaming into D&D.
On that point I agree. D&D is just one expression of our role-playing. And also there are tables who prefer following rules and dice randomness to the letter. I applaud them - if they are having fun, then they are doing it right! I was once told by an early viewer that I should put a warning up saying: I'm a rules hater and that my advice is for people who don't care about numbers. I haven't gotten around to it... but maybe I should :)
My advice is to only fudge rolls for new players who have no experience as sort of training wheels to get them started and not lose their character immediately. But after 3-4 sessions, only fudge rolls if you realize you have fucked up and thrown a WAY too hard encounter/battle/trap at your players and don't want your fuck up to TPK them. Otherwise, don't fudge rolls. Let the story go where it goes. If you are fudging rolls, you are just cheating the players of getting the real rpg experience, and instead giving them a bunch of cheating fake story.
7:20 You seriously haven't played with physicists, or watched the Big Bang Theory for that matter, have you? The laws of thermodynamics would apply to a dragon, we just have to keep in mind that this is a creature capable of breathing fire and thus postulate the right amount for it to work out. If physics did not exist, a broadsword would be enough to pierce through leather armour here an no longer so in the next town. What you said is true of people who believe physics to be a firm set of rules and not a way of finding out about how the world functions and stuff behaves, a very specific approach to problem solving.
9:16 Ok, first: It’s not a game if you can’t either win or lose while playing it. Characters die, in stories and in games, and when that happens the player playing the character that died (in D&D) just needs to roll up a new character of an appropriate level to join in next week or later down the line if they still want to play. That or you could just have a quest to bring the dead character back to life. Second: It sounds like this video suddenly boiled down to; “Screw the established rules, I have a story planned out and you’ll play it through to the happy ending I made regardless of what you just rolled”. You’re not writing a book, you’re establishing a world for others to play in. Besides, not all stories have happy endings and forcing a happy ending in a game where the outcome of the game is dependent on both the decisions the players make and their dice rolls negates any suspense that there might be from potentially dieing. If you know the DM isn’t going to let your character die because they have this awesome story planned out that involves everyone, then why bother taking the game seriously at all? Holding all the player’s hands though the game because you have a predetermined outcome for the campaign is just wrong. For all you know the players could end up switching to the bad guy's side at the very end and conquer the world. So much for a happy ending there.
From the point of view you described I totally agree with you. There must be suspense, there must be risk, and there must be death. From another point of view the game isn't fun if the dice and rules dictate a miserable outcome because the players made a bad call / rolled poorly. There are times when the dice simply don't roll right in a session, where a player just says one thing wrong in a negotiation. I have witnessed so many GM's kill campaigns that had great potential because they got stuck in a rules/dice trap. I have made other videos where I describe how to use dice and rules to build that suspense, to bring in the risk of dying etc. I understand there are people who get frustrated that I treat the rules as there to serve the collective narrative, not to act as a constraint. Death of a character can be a beautiful and poignant conclusion, and I've had a few campaigns end where the players sacrificed themselves to save a planet or a nation. It had so much more meaning that it was their choice to die, rather than some random dice that said - ok you die a meaningless death. You will also find that almost all the RPG's out there state in the beginning somewhere - there is no way to win or lose. A party that fails a quest hasn't lost - they've gained insight into how to do something. A party that slays a dragon hasn't won, there are more beasts out there. A group that concludes a 20 year campaign haven't won or lost mechanically - but have collectively achieved an amazing story and social experience. The bottom line is: What is your take-home after roleplaying? Is it to have numerically and statistically overcome over numerical and statistical chances? Or is it to have been on a journey of exploration and discovery? Either is just as fun - it's just a matter of what you want from your experience.
I realize that this thread is from long ago now but I feel it is still relevant. Here's my two cents. A GM's primary job is to learn about the players through their actions and "steer" them in the direction of the current narrative. He or she does not serve the rules, the rules exist as a framework and are there to serve the GM. Think of the rules as the child and a GM as the parent--and if any of you have children you will understand the relationship parallel. If your players are motivated by death and dying then make it a very real possibility for actions which merit it. If, on the other hand, the players are more motivated by story it is not incorrect to "fudge" a bit in favor of telling a better tale. Know your players.
If a single roll would destry the campaign by going wrong..... you shouldn't have had them roll. Player: "I want to ___________" DM: "OK, Roll" Player: "Fail" DM: "You die" ******** Player: "I want to _________" DM: "Sounds cool, it works" or "You can see that can't possibly work."
"Physics is suspended for play? Great! Remember that longship that I bought about six months ago? I pull it out of my belt pouch and we all climb in and sail across the desert." "... Great! I step off the cliff and float slowly to the bottom." In games I run and play in, physics works the same way as it does in the real world unless there's some explicit reason that it shouldn't. In some games, magic is such a reason, in others, futuretech ('indistuingishable from magic", remember) stands in instead. Surrealism is fine if you like it, but I want to know about it before the start of play. And I'll play in a different game, thanks. As to rules? It's a game. The thing that makes it a "game" rather than "cooperative storytelling" is that it has rules. As a player, I have a reasonable expectation that if you invite me for a game of, say, Pathfinder, there's not going to be a house rule about losing Sanity every time we pass Go unless you tell me about it ahead of time. When playing the game, I rely upon the rules to define many things, and if you and I have very different understandings about what the rules are (or should be), I don't think discussing that difference is unreasonable. And frankly, to say that any time such a discussion comes up we'll be ending play for the session is, to my mind, petulant. I'm glad you have a group that works for you. Any social contract that satisfies all the participants is fine. That said, I think it quite likely that neither of us would survive long at the other's table.
The problem you face. Is the bad system of d20 or dnd. A good system with a better mathematical curve never had that problem. In my game we always use the hero system (3d6) so the dices result rarely interfere with the realism or the consequences of the players actions.The bad consequences for a player is more the result of is decision and not if he is lucky or not with is dices. With a 3d6 system the history rarely suffer of the dices. For me when the gm interpret the dices result it become a arbitrary game and the player can always feel that. Hope i am clear english not my first language
