Zach ima be honest. I watch your episodes while im at work. Plz make the videos as close to an hour long as possible. It helps the time go by. Love the videos keep it up.
If you quickly move your mouse along the video bar Zach looks like a cartoon character being electrocuted in the preview. Great video as always king :]
My DM style is a cross between sandbox and railroading. I view my world like an amusement park: where you can choose to go on whatever ride you want, but you can't just create a ride. And some rides are roller coasters, where you get in the seat and there's no other choice but to ride on the rails. But you start at the entrance, go along the path, and eventually... you gotta leave. And I always explain that in my Session 0s, have never had any issues thankfully 🤞🤞
RE: story at 33:40 Just to play devil's advocate, I think it is entirely possible, and indeed probable, that the new GM is just overestimating the power of Magical Crafting. Not only do you need to spend a feat slot on it, but the gold cost and downtime are an easy control valve for how many items this player can make. Not only this, but given that the system expects PCs to have certain runes and bonuses at certain levels, I don't see an issue given the player could only craft items at or below their level. The GM is expected to give at least a few (party level + 1) items and consumables per level, so its not like the player would be encroaching on the treasure budget all that much. Side note: based on the story, the player was probably playing an INT caster, so wizard, witch, or psychic? Maybe magus? All fine classes. Personally, I find magus + psychic dedication for Imaginary Weapon is a little silly balance-wise, though not horrifically broken. In the end I don't think there's really enough detail for a definitive answer, but I somehow doubt this will escalate into an actually balance-related issue, and more so the malaise over system knowledge. Good vid as always Mr. Bold!
I agree, the dm is def over estimating the power of magical crafting and crafting in general. Also, from my experience, pf2 characters don't really drift *too* far apart in power, so i can't really imagine this player creating a character that's so much more powerful w/o gm permission.
Yeah, I think Zach doesn’t understand how generally weak magical crafting is in this system. It provides an extremely limited reward and is entirely GM dependant on how much you can even get out of it. The GM in the story sounds like someone who played 1e where crafting was completely busted. 2e in comparison doesn’t even come close. It’s basically just shopping with extra steps Also the stuff about minmaxing is just off. PF2e minmaxxing is infinitely less of a problem then it is 5e. So long as you put a +3/4 in your main stat, you’re basically set. The other players would have had to actively kneecap themselves in order to be significantly weaker than this guy was. That can happen, but then I’d argue this guy isn’t minmaxxing, he just made a competent character.
I once had a guy who wanted to be the tank, but complained about being targeted/hit, like this is what you wanted, the other people are hiding behind you so for the first couple of turns you will be the most targeted, while archers will attempt to pick off those doing the most, like what?
25:00 I [The DM] actually have a homebrew bit that i use for my wild magic sorcerer player to make sure their subclass is relevant. 1. They randomly roll for Wild Magic when they cast cantrips (if I can remember that they need to) 2. Every time they roll for Wild Magic and pass the check (they don't roll a 1), the "DC" or number required to cause an effect will go up by 1 (starts at 1, up to 2, 3, etc.) until they roll and fail the roll. It works flavor-wise as their latent magic powers bubbling up and eventually taking effect, but it also works to keep the player more engaged in the world and feeling that their character is having effects on it!
38:00 idk where you got all that from. What was read was the player had a character designed around crafting and the DM said no to crafting stuff for the party unless the party asked. The DM was the only one mentioned to have a problem with the player. So you kinda just shit on this person who hadn’t done anything wrong from the information given.
Based on the context we are given by Zach, this is fair to say. Zach also said he was paraphrasing the question; so, it's possible that some of this context was in the full submission but he omitted it? It seems like really important context to have and I didn't expect him to go off like this about the question. To me, it seems like the DM, who is new, doesn't know how to balance around a character that wants to create BIS items for themselves and their party; which, is where the minmaxing might be coming from? It does seem passive-aggressive for the DM to give these custom magic items to the rest of the party, invalidating the established role of the submitter.
Yeah 100%. The guy is trying to give items to the other players to make THEM more powerful. Nothing about the story seemed like a power trip. If my DM pulled a reflection ability out of their ass after I critically hit, I would be furious. Like if even dice rolls don't matter because you'll warp the world around specific events unfolding, just read me your book DM. Also some of the stuff Zach said to this guy seemed genuinely mean spirited. I know we only saw 1 side of the story, but if they genuinely believe the DM is actively sabotaging them because they have a vendetta against them, leave the campaign (or if they're good friends maybe try and talk it out). Plus the whole "ok you can craft items but only if they ask for them and your not allowed to talk to them about it" is insane; unless your character is charmed or cursed or whatever the DM can't forbid you from having a conversation with your team. The only person power-tripping here is the DM imo. Capital-class wall of text btw
Honestly I think your perspective on Open-World storytelling versus loose narrative storytelling just fixed my campaign, I know it's my fault my players aren't clicking with the narrative and this just saved my ass! ❤
Sometimes it’s good to have both in a campaign! Let your players explore and enjoy the open world story telling for the early levels, and then later levels make the stakes high enough that it threatens the things they like, so they want to step up and dive into the save the world narrative.
@@JamesLee-ky4dx That's kind of my plan, more like mega-man rules where you can choose what order to tackle things in and what conmects to the player characters motivations, but introducing problems and consequences, and letting my players choose to intervene or not. I had a silly rat piper mission in the first village that would have gifted the players a Pipe of The Sewers for fun use later maybe, but they ignored the npc despite an angry mob blaming him for the rat problem. I think there will be consequences to the players not correcting wrong in the world, that towns gonna be overrun with rats. Thanks for the advice though, in a very brainstormy mood
In sympathy with the story at 33:45, having a GM who knows less about the game mechanics than you do can be painful to experience, sometimes. Especially when the GM is assuming an adversarial stance. Cos at the end of the day it's their game, their rulings, part of being a good player is accepting what they say and moving on, and what's important is just keeping up the pacing. But on the other hand, if you're sat there waiting ages for your turn, and come up with a fun plan that you know is entirely within the rules, and then when your turn does come around the GM says you can't do it or it doesn't work that way, it does feel bad. You don't want to "um actually" them, and be "that guy", but you also know that their ruling wasn't correct, or what you're trying to do doesn't break anything, or that you'd allow it if you were the GM because it's just a bit of fun, or that you picked character options to specifically enable it, etc. etc. There's a memory I have of being an "entitled" player, that haunts me to this day, over something entirely trivial.
I’ll take as much content as possible, man keep the long episodes coning. I DM on Saturdays and then play on Sundays, and on Mondays I go into withdrawal, so I need these.
I have a good group of dnd friends where most of them have DM experience and its soooo nice. We all know each others expectations and know how to respect the story and how its run. (Lots of good role players too)
At this point it is tradition to give us temperature updates on your room. I honestly want to hear the temperature in your room EVEN IF you aren't recording in your room. Please make sure to never not give us the temperature so that whoever complained about it will never stop hearing about it.
Hello, Zach, and welcome back from vacation! I hope you all had a great time in Michigan (I had family in Allegan in the past), and your side quest was relaxing as well as memorable. Thanks again for your insights and opinions on game design and mechanics. Reading through some of the comments here, I found a kindred tack with @joelmi16 where there is a fusing of both "sandbox" and "tracked" portions of a game. Yes, there's a "main goal" to be dealt with. But like you said, there's a story - and if the players don't get on board the *story train* (is that "railroading"?), there are world altering consequences. So, for *me*, especially having newer players; leaving breadcrumbs, using plot hooks, lighting bonfires, or whatever it takes for them to stay on story is important to the narrative... it's a great responsibility to keep the game balanced and fun for both the players, and the DM. With all that said - have you run a game with a large (10 players) group in your time as a DM, or have you played with a large group? How would you keep such a mob on track - or on story - with so many back stories that can be intertwined within the story. Or does it matter overall? Irl not all people's back stories effect the overall narrative of life's "main quest" and that's okay... What are your thoughts? As always, thank you for your passion for the game and influence in its playability.
23:06 I think this is why I appreciate theme park games. More freedom, but there are events happening everywhere. Closing time (the end) is still coming regardless of how much you've seen, so it still has that oomph to a degree.
Loved the first question discussion. I call it building the Campaign/Adventure Skeleton instead of Structure. I aim to collaboratively work with the players to add muscle and flesh level of detail as we journey deeper together. Reacting and responding to their big and small decisions... and consequences. Additionally, though I agree with Speak with Dead issues and new similar spells shouldn't be created... Its simply a legacy spell dating back to OG DnD / 1E. Back when things were more Sandboxy. (I ban Silvery Barbs, big nope for me 😅).
The description of how you run the game so perfectly sums up how I want my games, but we've been running more adventures league style games since we started, I'd like to do the other way so I'm going to try stepping up to DM our next campaign
i totally get that idea of wanting to be part of a story, and sandbox taking away from that. investment and engagement IS an issue in sandbox style, as someone who dms it. the responsibility of the DM in a sandbox is to always make sure theres a PLOT to engage with. the idea for me with my sandbox is that if they dont like the story im doing, i allow them to leave that and find something else. but everything i set up that they ignore isnt going to waste or disappearing, its going to be important in some way or another. i take a lack of engagement and a wish to play a different story as feedback and then what story the players DO settle on, is what ill then shape the tone of the whole campaign etc. that is to say i can change what ive already had going on to make it what the players want, so i can keep the stakes and consequences while engaging my players. so to me, i ALWAYS gotta make sure it feels lile theres a narrative for my players to follow even if theyre ignoring another plot hook or event. and then a step further, i want to make ignoring a plothook become an ENHANCEMENT to the campaign as a whole, especially the plot. taking the lich example, if the players allow the lich to complete the ritual to blow up a kingdom or something idk, ill have that happen, and then the story becomes the players continuing on in the aftermath, and that gives me more resources for better and more interesting stories for my players.
hey zach! just wondering, im building a world where the very air the characters breath has a 50% chance of stunning them. i also regularly give and take away magic items depending on how im feeling on any given day, and I have 3 self insert OCs that are genuinely more important to the story than the characters. for some reason some of the players have said I may need to make some changes? i dont really see it from their point of view as i put a lot of time and effort into my games. please advise. ok seriously tho is leaving stun in my game but only having it either remove an action or everything but an action (reaction, bonus action, hide, etc) acceptable? like how mad on a scale from 1-10 would you be at that since i totally agree with hating stun but think this fixes it.
Don't forget to add this episode to the podcast playlist. I thought an episode got deleted because it skipped from 5 to 7. I go straight to the podcast tab to find these episodes and this one ain't there. Cheers, bro. Look forward to more of these videos.
1 month too late but I wanted to say I COMPLETELY agree with your feelings about Elden Ring. Even the best open world can never create the same purposeful and curated experience that a more linear game/story creates. Open World games suffer so much from pacing and direction issues, and Elden Ring is absolutely no exception.
33:47 Just to let you know Zach PF2E does have rulings and systems that are well fleshed out for crafting, creating, and enchanting which is also the archive for free as well. But if you are trying to go past that a compromise can be made as well.
Ok, so the story at 30ish min. I don't have the question in front of me and I don't know how much you abbreviated, but it seems like there's a conflict between a couple of things. 1: The new gm is floundering a bit with a powerful character and frantically trying to balance around them without communicating the need to do that. Maybe they feel flustered or defensive or like their lack of gm skill is having an effect and they're over compensating. Most forever gms (I am one myself) have been there early in our gm careers when an experienced player broke the table. 2: The player is trying to get some feedback on how to handle the interpersonal issue between what they perceive as unfair treatment by their gm. These things are separate problems, and we can tackle this in the way you have, by making it clear to the player that a high performing character can destabilize a table and playing to the group power level can be important for making things go smoothly. But, and this is my personal take, that's... wrong. As a gm, it's my goal to give the players the agency they want to tell their stories at the table within the greater narrative framework of the problem I've created for them to solve. If, at the end of the day, the story is that a Tony Stark style genius creator came in off the top rope and annihilated the BBEG with a mechanized steel chair (The artificer class goes brrrrr), then neat, that's the story. But it's my responsibility as GM to make sure the rest of the party is engaged and has stuff to do that makes THEM feel equally as valuable. Maybe the fighter can be hacking through hordes of mooks to give the artificer time to enact their plan. Maybe the wizard is fighting a battle of magic with the BBEG to distract them, maybe the cleric needs to manage a bunch of poisoned hostages. Etc, you can see where this is going. Cutting down the Forever GM's character (Or any high performing character) to meet the power level of the story you're telling is, imo, lazy. rise to the occasion when you can. The second part of this is that we have a new GM who doesn't know what they're doing and, by what you reported, is making things up to try and 'counter' the high performing character. This is frustrating the poster and it's become an interpersonal issue more than a balance one. They clearly aren't going to be up to the task of rising to meet the challenge of this crafting character who has the potential to break their game balance, but that's fine. Its a learning experience. The best advice I could give the poster is; Talk to your GM, make it clear that you're feeling targeted, and ask what you can do to enjoy the character concept you've created within the bounds of their campaign to make them feel comfortable about your power level. Add on to this that; while you want to help them learn and grow as a GM, you also want to enjoy your time as a player and that's being curtailed by the arbitrary restrictions put in place. At the last; I didn't hear it in the post, but if the players and gm are 'hating' this player and their actions. it might be time to find a new table.
When I play in a setting where "the world will end" and or "my character will die" if my character doesn't intervene, the choice my character gets to make is: Die with everyone else / Do something I don't feel like my character just trying to survive is interesting motivation, especially not a heroic one, and it doesn't say much other than that they want to live. Of course there's still room for: "Someone else can/might do something", which is slightly more interesting conflict, but a very worn out one. I feel like a heroic decision would be working against evil even though it might not effect you greatly, which sparks curiosity of how this character is motivated.
33:40 I feel a little bit sorry for the guy The new DM avoids any confrontation in private, clearly has it out for the person by making stuff up AND not JUST overestimates crafting magical items but also takes away the identity of a player by not allowing them that feature after the playsessions begun. Would've really loved if you read out the whole thing, simply for more context but with what you presented it seems like not a power issue by the person putting up the question but rather by the DM having a Vendetta against the player Also I really do not understand your reaction to this. You immedatly jump to the conclusion that the player is the bad person in this and then just go on a 5min rant about something that didnt happen
Hi Zach, I started Dming this summer (first DND experience too). I am figuring out how to organize my notes and such but have a problem with roleplaying NPC. How do I make them unique? Should I care much about every random merchant and try to come up with their personality?
Hi, not Zach here. In my experience, you just need one key detail about an unimportant NPC. If you do voices, that does count. If you WANT the NPC to stay around, rule of threes. Once the players learn 3 facts about an NPC, they're a real person (that's not scientific) tldr: Only flesh out NPC's you and your players like interacting with Zacharias please don't mail me a pipe bomb for my opinion, I can't handle the sweat
It's always a good idea to try and flesh out your npcs. A good way to do this is to give them a unique "thing" about them, whether it be backstory, trait, look, etc. A good way to do this is find a d100 table of traits. This will help you flesh out an npc in the moment without spending too much time thinking about it. If you are designing an npc before hand, you should probably create an npc with something more unique than one on the d100 table.
The elden ring opinion (at around 13 minutes) is based. Fromsoft does not do a good job of designing around open world, especially with their quest lines. As cool as it is to find gear in a dungeon somewhere, it's less cool when the same dungeon has been copy pasted 30 times through the world and Everytime you explore one it's like a 60% chance you find one piece of gear that your character can't even use.
I've already sent in a question on instagram but it's a week delayed it seems. I think there's a semantic understanding issue, maybe, with sandbox games? I'm a DM and I've worked 3+ years in game development professionally and I'm currently taking a year to write and self publish a novel. I would call my games "sandbox" but there's so much overlap between what you describe as your linear game to what I call my sandbox game... First up, I don't run dungeon crawls, not in the 80s/90s style. I run political sandbox games. I setup factions and key actors in the world at odds, I setup their internal conflicts just how I do for writing, and the external conflicts comes from their opposed interests. I do structure my games with some key person or faction moving towards some climactic end point and if the players don't do anything they'll succeed. But I don't detail things until players get close to them, it's like I'm zooming in on the story. Here's an example: In my ongoing 3 year sandbox campaign I had a guy who sells newspapers to the dragons as a quest available to the players (via rumours). The players heard the rumour but forgot about it. I knew he was in the world so when I needed to give them some momentum after they finished a full story arc (after the 1st year or so of the game) I 'zoomed in' on this faction and made him Raymond Reddington from The Blacklist who was able to turn up and give the party some tension. Creating this character immediately made many other existing story threads in the world become clear and far deeper. My players already had noticed many of the smaller threads, and when they ended up pulling on them it came out in a way that they felt was deeply satisfying because consistency was maintained. Hell we had almost a year long 'arc' that was the party in a crisis of faith over whether they support the Raymond Reddington character or his rival, ending in an emotional fall out with one NPC 'retiring' into the service of one of the key NPCs / factions in the world (and now on track to become a major actor opposing the party). Do we just not have the same understanding when we say the word 'sandbox' or is there more to the differences in what you call linear play and this? To me my joy in DMing comes from the 'discovery' feeling I get with playing sandbox style games. I'm learning what the story is and providing some guidance to keep it interesting, but leaving the players to pick the broad strokes and drive the story. It's also worth noting that I do have open discussions with my players when they run out of impulse and don't know what they want to do in the world, in those moments I just give them an option to take some downtime and they will get a new update / event in X weeks. They don't often need it, but it's a simple solution to avoid the sandbox paralysis of choice...
One of my players cast Speak with Dead in a murder mystery one-shot asking "Who killed you?" And my player almost cried when I spoke: "It wasn't a who that killed me, but a what. Red cloak." My player: "How did you die?" Me: "Though humanoid in shape, the moment it turned what I assumed was going to be its face towards me, every part of its body rotated violently 45 degrees against itself like glass, and shattered into my eyes." He didn't almost cry because his 'ha! gotcha' spell didn't work, he nearly cried because the description was terrifying. He didn't cast Speak with Dead for the next 3 hours. xD
So they way my DM and I decided to Wild Magic surges for my sorcerer felt pretty fair and fun for us. Any time I cast a leveled spell I would roll a D20 regardless of what spell it was. If I rolled a Nat 1 the spell slot got used and I instead rolled on the Wild Magic table. However whenever I rolled a Nat 20 I got to use my spell and then roll on the table. At one point I felt like I wanted it to happen more and I asked him if we could extend the rule to all my cantrips and he said sure. No one at the table minded it and it certainly made for some fun jokes at my expense at times when in the middle of battle I got turned into a useless flower pot or I would get an actual good ability and it would force me to restrategize to optimize a new tool. I will admit it certainly felt like I had less utility than the rest of my table when it came to our sublasses, but the overall campaign was very chill and well balanced so I never felt like I was ever useless.
Hey Zac, I had a moment with my DM and want your opinion on it. Context: my group, including me, is relevantly new. We understand the core mechs. Our dm is the most experienced, with a good understanding of each class and its roles. That said, I am playing a Pact of Chain Warlock within the campaign. I am currently using this subclass by making my imp turn invisible alongside shape-shifting to scout potential dangers. I have been doing this for most dangerous encounters, and this is where my dm and I disagree. My DM states that actions like this, where I take time to scout each "dangerous area," Get rid of the feeling of "danger" and "adventure" for my fellow party mates. Furthermore, he states I am eliminating other class roles like rogue because I can check for traps and other issues. He states that my behaviors are "Abusive," challenging and are wasting time. He states it's fine that I play this way, but he is letting me know. I noted that I wasn't being abusive but instead just using the tools available to me. Another minor issue: I was called a min-maxer for looking up what stat is the best for my class and encouraging a monk party member to use their fists instead of throwing rocks. Overall, I don't know how to feel about this situation because of my lack of experience within DND. Thanks for reading this out. Have a good day.
was on reddit (i know i know) with these idiots who were endorsing players having the "agency" to leave barovia in COS. my response to them is "why? why did you sit down to play COS if you're just going to leave it?" yes players should have agency, but not at the expense of literally not playing the game
Some of the most successful and audience-pulling Actual Play games are RAILROADED AS FUCK, and that's fine - the DM and the players have an understanding that they're playing the game to entertain a non-present audience and they're good at entertaining. Shit, I'd watch it. I'll watch Chaos Theory, of course! Of course I will!
My favorite part in all these episodes is Zach saying he doesn't understand why people are calling him D&D Jerma, then proceeds to do "the meat grinder incident" 1:1 while raging
I feel like a good use of sandbox tools/concepts acts more like a world engine but not a replacement for the actual campaign arcs that take place within the sandbox. A macro tool for managing setting and big ideas, but not necessarily zoomed into the party level of detail.
Paused at 14:36 so this might be a moot point, bit with narratives to watch, I think a big difference is familiarity with the material. Of your players (actors) are not familiar enough to feel like they can be proactive in the world, it will feel somewhat like a ragdoll's adventure. Would my character know this? Does this exist as a concept? Has magic been used in this way, or is it a bit too meta? So on and so forth. Without writing a short novel for world generation on the game you're running, I feel like there is an amount of out of game coordination that must be done for a game to be watched. Not perhaps into spoiler territory for your players, but maybe some extra breakdown of what it means for their characters to disseminate the knowledge or hints they have gotten.
Hope your vacation went well Zatch Bell, I was wondering how you handle experience and meta when it comes to players. I get wary if somebody's running a hexblade oathbreaker and nervous if a newer player is interested in playing an elemental monk. What measures can I take so I don't need to dictate or invalidate my players whose characters might mechanically struggle or feel the need to min/max in order to get a sense of contribution?
The best way I can describe a Sandbox story as a dm who has been running and developing a sanbox based system for more than 10 years, and while watching this video with my players and asking them they do agree they prefer this way of doing things. Not that everyone should. Anyway imagine Tolkien was your dm. He made the history, the lore and the world of Middle Earth. Now imagine he sits down with all this and you are playing Bilbo and your friends are the dwarves. Tolkien might have written a story and a concept and is using Gandalf as his Oc having fun with the players yet also trying to get them to do the things they need to do or even being forced to help them from time to time even though in world hes meant to be a guide. Point is Tolkien told his players he wanted to run a heist. First session you as Bilbo says no "I just want to sit in my house and be lazy, why would i go out there?" Tolkien or you as a dm would be pretty pissed off. And he just said its what his character would do!! But he eventually left and went on the adventure and chaos transpired. But it made an amazing story. So good that those same sanbox characters came back later and had to finish the story of that ring that bilbo stole that the dm told him not to. But now its part of this world.
I did a "reflect damage dealt back" kind of thing once to my paladin. They had just crit, did a 5th lvl divine smight, dude was vulnerable to radiant damage, and dealt 151 damage. was so satisfying to be like "k, cool. reaction, he deals the same amount of damage back to you". obviously immediately downed the pally, boss went down shortly after, and they immediately got healed before they needed to make any saves, so it wasn't a big deal narratively, but the pally is STILL salty about that to this day. literally brought it up last sesh, definitely adding it to my bingo card. tbf, I did kind of egg em on to max level divine smite once I saw the crit. they kept going with their second attack, and I was like "yeah man, do a fourth lvl smite too, why not, he's vulnerable to it". I won't lie, that was the one time I made sure to remind them of all their special abilities and everything "oh, don't forget advanced divine smite. oh and the magic sword does an extra +3 damage, don't forget".
Alright, first question. Can't wait to get spit all over my face as you point at me aggressively I've watched D&D for a long time, up to four years ago with JRWI Fated, Riptide, Convergence, and now Wonderlust. I've wanted to play in games, and recently got the stomach to DM for a group of friends I met online (I saw it as nerve-wracking to control the story in front of people) Basically the plot is very story driven in the first arc, and it's very connected to one of the I'Grada in the first location, a troglodyte which is really important later in the story. I need them to meet the goober but I'm worried with how I've structured it that they just won't/Find a way to escape meeting this frog that pisses in people's hands when frightened and that it feels... Railroaded (RAILROADING RAILROADING RAILROADING). AKA, unnecessary. All that winded wordplay to say, how do you set up and introduce villains in your campaigns? Do they just appear without the party getting to know them, are they connected to your party? Is it usually betrayals, or otherwise? For reference, the party I'm running in 5e is: - A pencil - An undead bird - A siren - A tree - A harpy with mommy issues and dementia - A 4th wall breaking human - A dragonborn with familial issues And hopefully soon, another birb that likes lying to people We're doing it over text as someone else is running a campaign and no one has time for 2 in person campaigns, for more context. I fucking hate stun and in the new rules stun is nerfed because it and incapacitated doesn't drop your speed to 0 I still hate stun. Stun can eat my and your ass. We can share.
On what you said about banning verses balancing around overpowered stuff: why go through all the extra effort and adversarial, conflict breeding, nonsense of trying to balance against silvery barbes when you could just ban it or even just nerf it because really what's the downside to banning it? The players who could have benefited from it might go "aw shucks" and then they will move on and never think about it again and you will all have a better time not having to balance the game around it. And I'm zeroing in on silvery barbes here because I hate it in particular but this applies to any overpowered spell or mechanic. If it's going to give you a headache and your going to have to improvise overpowered abilities for you enemies to counter things so the game isn't ruined then why not just get to the root of the issue and ban. Your players are going to feel way more restricted if every time they try and cast silvery barbs it gets counterspelled than if you just ban it.
These are great; binged the previous 5 episodes a couple days ago. I've only played D&D once for sesh 0-1, but I want to DM and have the backbone of a world/story in mind. I want it more sandbox, but the introduction to the world and bbeg I give them will clearly show what linear story I want to progress through while an npc in the group only explains details through cryptic schizophrenic mumbles the group has to interperet.. How would you deal with a seemingly invincible bbeg appearing throughout the game and an npc following the party, both critical to the story finale.
Hey Zach, i have a question for the question gods. I am kinda new to Dming and i've just started a new campaign with a couple players, they just started so i think "Hey, maybe i can do xyz for this quest" but they basically refuse to interract with the story i am trying to kindly direct them towards. Example: The players have been tasked with finding a kobold wizard wich is causing problems for local villagers, they need to track him down and defeat him. They snoop around a bit in town and get to a hobbit who is selling apples, long story short one player tries to steal an apple and the hobbit tries to stop her, the other players respond with f*cking impaling the hobbit with a javelin right through the head, in broad daylight infront of around 30 people, killing the entire guard force of the town in the process. How am i supposed to get them to engage in the story? I don't really want to prepare for hours only for them to ignore the story and me having to bend the entire preperations i had previously done just so i can maybe get them to do a quest. I would be super duper thankfull if you featured this in the episode.
The players killed the town guard? 1: The wizards life just got easier since the town is unprotected. 2: New hired guards are gonna be much stronger. Higher level bounty hunters, mercenaries, etc. Improvising plots and twisting events around players can be hard, but it is a learnable skill. Quests are a metagame tool to direct the players in the world that is already happening. The baddies plans continue whether or not the players get involved. (Unlike a DMs plans that always go awry. ) You do need to have a full conversation with your players about what your expectations are and what their expectations are! They might not be a good group for the style of game you wanted.
Genuinely, longer episodes are better. I don't know anyone who wants short episodes of anything. If it's for you, then no worries. Understandable. But, for us? More is good!
Hey Zach I'm curious about your opinion, I'm currently in a 5e rise of tiamat campaign my party is level 4 and in our first dungeon the DM gave our Barbarian an antimatter gun, Druid a +1 laser rifle, rogue a +2 laser pistol and me the paladin a +1 musket. I'm not very fond of the idea of giving everyone such powerful weapons so early and weapons that kinda nullify the point of our classes I've decided to not use the musket since it doesn't make sense to use it being a paladin but I think in any combat encounters I'm practically going to be useless compared to what everyone else has. Am I thinking about this too much or do I have some reasoning for this train of thought?
Alternate history campaigns sound cool but with my poor knowledge of history and general sleep deprivation, I'm worried I would somehow start accidentally citing the campaign events as real (I'd probably sound insane like "Guys remember when the US sent dogs to space and they came back with one extra and when they analysed them all in quarantine it turned out to be an alien? What do you mean that never happened? Hey why are you walking away-")
I think you misunderstood the post about the forever dm character. It's one thing if they finally get to play, and decide to make God's chosen with perfect stats. It's another thing if they built their character to help others reach higher potential. Based on the post, it sounds like the latter. The OP even stated that the dms reason for hampering their character was because they didn't want the OP to give them best in slot equipment. This would only happen if the dm gave them all the materials and time required to do so. And even then, it's not like the OP was being selfish and the main character. It sounds like they wanted to play an arms dealer, and the dm went and added skill checks to breath correctly. That being said, this is one side of the story.
Hi Mr. Bach the Zold, I would like your opinion on a matter. I'm first time GM-ing a campaign and because of my inexperience the beginning of the campaign wasn't tied together as well as it should have been, so one of my player's character evolved in a way such that they are not completely aligned with the rest of the party. (This happened both because he made stupid choices whose consequences drastically changed how he played the character after he realized he couldn't just YOLO into massive enemy camps, and because the story setup wasn't very good due to my inexperience.) He wants to try to fix this by starting a new character that will have more reason to adventure with the party, hopefully increasing party cohesion. However, I have already written a quite extensive plot line for this character's backstory that also was supposed to be an important part of the main story. It looks like this player wants to make the character switch in a few sessions, so we won't have time to get to the important plot line related to his character before he switches characters. What would you recommend I do with the main storyline? Should I rewrite it to salvage the most interesting story points, or should I just let it happen in the background and then let the characters see the results of the unfinished storyline? I have already told him I'd allow him to change his character because I want to make sure he's still having fun playing in our sessions, but I'm thinking that maybe I should have pushed back until we get to a point in the campaign where his current character's "part to play" has finished. Not sure what to do. I'd love to hear you(r opinion) rage about this!
what do you think of D&D representation in media (Stranger things, D&D movies/shows, Video game collaborations, etc.) Do you think it represents the game well, or have any personal opinions on the subject in general?
Hey Zach, I am more of a newer DM, I was wondering if this was a rlly bad way to make the story with "sandbox" mentality to it and the villains are based on PC backstories. Let me explain the Sandbox mentality I am talking about. I made the entire world with points of interests so that in the case they didn't go directly (x) where I wanted them to go I still have content to fill in and could connect it to the story later. Idk if that is just a normal thing or not
My "house rule" (it's technically RAW) for wild magic is if their Tides of Chaos is used, WHENEVER they cast a spell that uses a slot wild magic is rolled.
I think I prefer linear games as opposed to open world games usually, but a game like Elden Ring is a nice game I can play when I want to listen to a podcasr or something
Boring aside, wild magic sorcerer is entirely a joke class. In even a semi-serious setting, from an in-world perspective, when there are adventurers that you can choose to join up with, who in their right mind would travel with the guy who might randomly turn them into a snail or blow themselves up? Adventuring is already perilous enough without having to worry about whether your ally is going to randomly fuck things up.
I fully agree with that dark souls opinion. Elden Ring is at its best when you're in those legacy dungeons and not just running around on torrent fighting the same reskinned foot soldiers.
that pf game with the newbie dm sounds like pf1e not pf2e... magic item crafting in 1e is insane as to crafting in 2e which takes 4 days of downtime. also sounds like a new panicky dm
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Zach ima be honest. I watch your episodes while im at work. Plz make the videos as close to an hour long as possible. It helps the time go by. Love the videos keep it up.
Yeah when im on the roof nailing in tile 635 of 2379 i want zack there for every minute
*7 hours
Same
I need bro to yap harder, it’s not filling enough brain receptors
i need hour long rants on the reg
If you quickly move your mouse along the video bar Zach looks like a cartoon character being electrocuted in the preview. Great video as always king :]
My DM style is a cross between sandbox and railroading. I view my world like an amusement park: where you can choose to go on whatever ride you want, but you can't just create a ride. And some rides are roller coasters, where you get in the seat and there's no other choice but to ride on the rails. But you start at the entrance, go along the path, and eventually... you gotta leave.
And I always explain that in my Session 0s, have never had any issues thankfully 🤞🤞
RAILROADING
RAILROADING
Yell your oppinion at me funny man
My power has been out since Friday but at least watching this at 144p on McWifi makes you not look sweaty anymore
Best of luck to ya, brother. Be safe
Once it cools off in LA a bit will the manic rants continue or were they fueled by heat rage 🤔 😢
I always feel bad for the people who listen to this as a podcast and miss all the CRISP facial expressions
Or when he points directly at the camera
Fr, the physical comedy of this man just existing is peak
RE: story at 33:40
Just to play devil's advocate, I think it is entirely possible, and indeed probable, that the new GM is just overestimating the power of Magical Crafting. Not only do you need to spend a feat slot on it, but the gold cost and downtime are an easy control valve for how many items this player can make. Not only this, but given that the system expects PCs to have certain runes and bonuses at certain levels, I don't see an issue given the player could only craft items at or below their level. The GM is expected to give at least a few (party level + 1) items and consumables per level, so its not like the player would be encroaching on the treasure budget all that much.
Side note: based on the story, the player was probably playing an INT caster, so wizard, witch, or psychic? Maybe magus? All fine classes. Personally, I find magus + psychic dedication for Imaginary Weapon is a little silly balance-wise, though not horrifically broken.
In the end I don't think there's really enough detail for a definitive answer, but I somehow doubt this will escalate into an actually balance-related issue, and more so the malaise over system knowledge. Good vid as always Mr. Bold!
I agree, the dm is def over estimating the power of magical crafting and crafting in general. Also, from my experience, pf2 characters don't really drift *too* far apart in power, so i can't really imagine this player creating a character that's so much more powerful w/o gm permission.
Yeah, I think Zach doesn’t understand how generally weak magical crafting is in this system. It provides an extremely limited reward and is entirely GM dependant on how much you can even get out of it.
The GM in the story sounds like someone who played 1e where crafting was completely busted. 2e in comparison doesn’t even come close. It’s basically just shopping with extra steps
Also the stuff about minmaxing is just off. PF2e minmaxxing is infinitely less of a problem then it is 5e. So long as you put a +3/4 in your main stat, you’re basically set. The other players would have had to actively kneecap themselves in order to be significantly weaker than this guy was. That can happen, but then I’d argue this guy isn’t minmaxxing, he just made a competent character.
Zach this episode was incredible! Hearing so much of your experience in games and what you’ve learned from them is so helpful!
Every time time I come home and I see that you posted one of these, I freeze frame jump fist in air. Thank you for making these d&d jerma
I once had a guy who wanted to be the tank, but complained about being targeted/hit, like this is what you wanted, the other people are hiding behind you so for the first couple of turns you will be the most targeted, while archers will attempt to pick off those doing the most, like what?
25:00 I [The DM] actually have a homebrew bit that i use for my wild magic sorcerer player to make sure their subclass is relevant. 1. They randomly roll for Wild Magic when they cast cantrips (if I can remember that they need to) 2. Every time they roll for Wild Magic and pass the check (they don't roll a 1), the "DC" or number required to cause an effect will go up by 1 (starts at 1, up to 2, 3, etc.) until they roll and fail the roll. It works flavor-wise as their latent magic powers bubbling up and eventually taking effect, but it also works to keep the player more engaged in the world and feeling that their character is having effects on it!
I love the slow transition from “you may be the problem” to full on “ya dude it’s you”
The first question was really great. Another great episode too.
38:00 idk where you got all that from. What was read was the player had a character designed around crafting and the DM said no to crafting stuff for the party unless the party asked. The DM was the only one mentioned to have a problem with the player. So you kinda just shit on this person who hadn’t done anything wrong from the information given.
Yeah I had to double back to make sure I didn't miss something, but the comment never mentioned the party members hating them
I assumed it was something that was skipped over since he said he was gonna paraphrase a bit. Otherwise super lost on this one
Was looking for someone else to mention this, it’s possible that it’s in the information he skipped over in the question (which I think is a mistake)
Based on the context we are given by Zach, this is fair to say. Zach also said he was paraphrasing the question; so, it's possible that some of this context was in the full submission but he omitted it? It seems like really important context to have and I didn't expect him to go off like this about the question. To me, it seems like the DM, who is new, doesn't know how to balance around a character that wants to create BIS items for themselves and their party; which, is where the minmaxing might be coming from? It does seem passive-aggressive for the DM to give these custom magic items to the rest of the party, invalidating the established role of the submitter.
Yeah 100%. The guy is trying to give items to the other players to make THEM more powerful. Nothing about the story seemed like a power trip. If my DM pulled a reflection ability out of their ass after I critically hit, I would be furious. Like if even dice rolls don't matter because you'll warp the world around specific events unfolding, just read me your book DM. Also some of the stuff Zach said to this guy seemed genuinely mean spirited. I know we only saw 1 side of the story, but if they genuinely believe the DM is actively sabotaging them because they have a vendetta against them, leave the campaign (or if they're good friends maybe try and talk it out). Plus the whole "ok you can craft items but only if they ask for them and your not allowed to talk to them about it" is insane; unless your character is charmed or cursed or whatever the DM can't forbid you from having a conversation with your team. The only person power-tripping here is the DM imo. Capital-class wall of text btw
Good to see another episode of BachTheZold! Love hearing the rants
Honestly I think your perspective on Open-World storytelling versus loose narrative storytelling just fixed my campaign, I know it's my fault my players aren't clicking with the narrative and this just saved my ass! ❤
Sometimes it’s good to have both in a campaign! Let your players explore and enjoy the open world story telling for the early levels, and then later levels make the stakes high enough that it threatens the things they like, so they want to step up and dive into the save the world narrative.
@@JamesLee-ky4dx That's kind of my plan, more like mega-man rules where you can choose what order to tackle things in and what conmects to the player characters motivations, but introducing problems and consequences, and letting my players choose to intervene or not. I had a silly rat piper mission in the first village that would have gifted the players a Pipe of The Sewers for fun use later maybe, but they ignored the npc despite an angry mob blaming him for the rat problem. I think there will be consequences to the players not correcting wrong in the world, that towns gonna be overrun with rats. Thanks for the advice though, in a very brainstormy mood
In sympathy with the story at 33:45, having a GM who knows less about the game mechanics than you do can be painful to experience, sometimes. Especially when the GM is assuming an adversarial stance. Cos at the end of the day it's their game, their rulings, part of being a good player is accepting what they say and moving on, and what's important is just keeping up the pacing. But on the other hand, if you're sat there waiting ages for your turn, and come up with a fun plan that you know is entirely within the rules, and then when your turn does come around the GM says you can't do it or it doesn't work that way, it does feel bad. You don't want to "um actually" them, and be "that guy", but you also know that their ruling wasn't correct, or what you're trying to do doesn't break anything, or that you'd allow it if you were the GM because it's just a bit of fun, or that you picked character options to specifically enable it, etc. etc.
There's a memory I have of being an "entitled" player, that haunts me to this day, over something entirely trivial.
I’ll take as much content as possible, man keep the long episodes coning. I DM on Saturdays and then play on Sundays, and on Mondays I go into withdrawal, so I need these.
I have a good group of dnd friends where most of them have DM experience and its soooo nice. We all know each others expectations and know how to respect the story and how its run. (Lots of good role players too)
At this point it is tradition to give us temperature updates on your room. I honestly want to hear the temperature in your room EVEN IF you aren't recording in your room. Please make sure to never not give us the temperature so that whoever complained about it will never stop hearing about it.
Hello, Zach, and welcome back from vacation! I hope you all had a great time in Michigan (I had family in Allegan in the past), and your side quest was relaxing as well as memorable.
Thanks again for your insights and opinions on game design and mechanics. Reading through some of the comments here, I found a kindred tack with @joelmi16 where there is a fusing of both "sandbox" and "tracked" portions of a game. Yes, there's a "main goal" to be dealt with. But like you said, there's a story - and if the players don't get on board the *story train* (is that "railroading"?), there are world altering consequences. So, for *me*, especially having newer players; leaving breadcrumbs, using plot hooks, lighting bonfires, or whatever it takes for them to stay on story is important to the narrative... it's a great responsibility to keep the game balanced and fun for both the players, and the DM.
With all that said - have you run a game with a large (10 players) group in your time as a DM, or have you played with a large group? How would you keep such a mob on track - or on story - with so many back stories that can be intertwined within the story. Or does it matter overall? Irl not all people's back stories effect the overall narrative of life's "main quest" and that's okay... What are your thoughts?
As always, thank you for your passion for the game and influence in its playability.
23:06 I think this is why I appreciate theme park games. More freedom, but there are events happening everywhere. Closing time (the end) is still coming regardless of how much you've seen, so it still has that oomph to a degree.
Just binged the 6 episodes released, and can confidently say this is the greatest podcast I’ve ever heard. Sorry talk tuah 🫡
Loved the first question discussion. I call it building the Campaign/Adventure Skeleton instead of Structure. I aim to collaboratively work with the players to add muscle and flesh level of detail as we journey deeper together. Reacting and responding to their big and small decisions... and consequences.
Additionally, though I agree with Speak with Dead issues and new similar spells shouldn't be created... Its simply a legacy spell dating back to OG DnD / 1E. Back when things were more Sandboxy. (I ban Silvery Barbs, big nope for me 😅).
The description of how you run the game so perfectly sums up how I want my games, but we've been running more adventures league style games since we started, I'd like to do the other way so I'm going to try stepping up to DM our next campaign
i totally get that idea of wanting to be part of a story, and sandbox taking away from that. investment and engagement IS an issue in sandbox style, as someone who dms it.
the responsibility of the DM in a sandbox is to always make sure theres a PLOT to engage with. the idea for me with my sandbox is that if they dont like the story im doing, i allow them to leave that and find something else. but everything i set up that they ignore isnt going to waste or disappearing, its going to be important in some way or another. i take a lack of engagement and a wish to play a different story as feedback and then what story the players DO settle on, is what ill then shape the tone of the whole campaign etc.
that is to say i can change what ive already had going on to make it what the players want, so i can keep the stakes and consequences while engaging my players.
so to me, i ALWAYS gotta make sure it feels lile theres a narrative for my players to follow even if theyre ignoring another plot hook or event. and then a step further, i want to make ignoring a plothook become an ENHANCEMENT to the campaign as a whole, especially the plot.
taking the lich example, if the players allow the lich to complete the ritual to blow up a kingdom or something idk, ill have that happen, and then the story becomes the players continuing on in the aftermath, and that gives me more resources for better and more interesting stories for my players.
hey zach! just wondering, im building a world where the very air the characters breath has a 50% chance of stunning them. i also regularly give and take away magic items depending on how im feeling on any given day, and I have 3 self insert OCs that are genuinely more important to the story than the characters. for some reason some of the players have said I may need to make some changes? i dont really see it from their point of view as i put a lot of time and effort into my games. please advise. ok seriously tho is leaving stun in my game but only having it either remove an action or everything but an action (reaction, bonus action, hide, etc) acceptable? like how mad on a scale from 1-10 would you be at that since i totally agree with hating stun but think this fixes it.
As long as you’re not railroading them I think it’s okay.
i love my weekly sopping wet dnd jerma rant
So happy to be back watching Bold burns and Bad berries on my monday!
Don't forget to add this episode to the podcast playlist. I thought an episode got deleted because it skipped from 5 to 7. I go straight to the podcast tab to find these episodes and this one ain't there. Cheers, bro. Look forward to more of these videos.
1 month too late but I wanted to say I COMPLETELY agree with your feelings about Elden Ring. Even the best open world can never create the same purposeful and curated experience that a more linear game/story creates. Open World games suffer so much from pacing and direction issues, and Elden Ring is absolutely no exception.
It would be nice to have a guest DM in your hot room. You could provide cold towels and Andes mint chocolates.
that last rant at the end was the boldest take ive seen so far
33:47 Just to let you know Zach PF2E does have rulings and systems that are well fleshed out for crafting, creating, and enchanting which is also the archive for free as well. But if you are trying to go past that a compromise can be made as well.
Ok, so the story at 30ish min. I don't have the question in front of me and I don't know how much you abbreviated, but it seems like there's a conflict between a couple of things. 1: The new gm is floundering a bit with a powerful character and frantically trying to balance around them without communicating the need to do that. Maybe they feel flustered or defensive or like their lack of gm skill is having an effect and they're over compensating. Most forever gms (I am one myself) have been there early in our gm careers when an experienced player broke the table. 2: The player is trying to get some feedback on how to handle the interpersonal issue between what they perceive as unfair treatment by their gm.
These things are separate problems, and we can tackle this in the way you have, by making it clear to the player that a high performing character can destabilize a table and playing to the group power level can be important for making things go smoothly. But, and this is my personal take, that's... wrong.
As a gm, it's my goal to give the players the agency they want to tell their stories at the table within the greater narrative framework of the problem I've created for them to solve. If, at the end of the day, the story is that a Tony Stark style genius creator came in off the top rope and annihilated the BBEG with a mechanized steel chair (The artificer class goes brrrrr), then neat, that's the story. But it's my responsibility as GM to make sure the rest of the party is engaged and has stuff to do that makes THEM feel equally as valuable. Maybe the fighter can be hacking through hordes of mooks to give the artificer time to enact their plan. Maybe the wizard is fighting a battle of magic with the BBEG to distract them, maybe the cleric needs to manage a bunch of poisoned hostages. Etc, you can see where this is going.
Cutting down the Forever GM's character (Or any high performing character) to meet the power level of the story you're telling is, imo, lazy. rise to the occasion when you can.
The second part of this is that we have a new GM who doesn't know what they're doing and, by what you reported, is making things up to try and 'counter' the high performing character. This is frustrating the poster and it's become an interpersonal issue more than a balance one. They clearly aren't going to be up to the task of rising to meet the challenge of this crafting character who has the potential to break their game balance, but that's fine. Its a learning experience. The best advice I could give the poster is; Talk to your GM, make it clear that you're feeling targeted, and ask what you can do to enjoy the character concept you've created within the bounds of their campaign to make them feel comfortable about your power level. Add on to this that; while you want to help them learn and grow as a GM, you also want to enjoy your time as a player and that's being curtailed by the arbitrary restrictions put in place.
At the last; I didn't hear it in the post, but if the players and gm are 'hating' this player and their actions. it might be time to find a new table.
Can you write my essay it's due at 11:59
Idk how a time stamp happened 😂
When I play in a setting where "the world will end" and or "my character will die" if my character doesn't intervene, the choice my character gets to make is:
Die with everyone else / Do something
I don't feel like my character just trying to survive is interesting motivation, especially not a heroic one, and it doesn't say much other than that they want to live. Of course there's still room for: "Someone else can/might do something", which is slightly more interesting conflict, but a very worn out one.
I feel like a heroic decision would be working against evil even though it might not effect you greatly, which sparks curiosity of how this character is motivated.
i love these make more content please you have stong opinions and good logic and i love hearing it
33:40 I feel a little bit sorry for the guy
The new DM avoids any confrontation in private, clearly has it out for the person by making stuff up AND not JUST overestimates crafting magical items but also takes away the identity of a player by not allowing them that feature after the playsessions begun.
Would've really loved if you read out the whole thing, simply for more context but with what you presented it seems like not a power issue by the person putting up the question but rather by the DM having a Vendetta against the player
Also I really do not understand your reaction to this. You immedatly jump to the conclusion that the player is the bad person in this and then just go on a 5min rant about something that didnt happen
Hi Zach, I started Dming this summer (first DND experience too). I am figuring out how to organize my notes and such but have a problem with roleplaying NPC. How do I make them unique? Should I care much about every random merchant and try to come up with their personality?
Hi, not Zach here.
In my experience, you just need one key detail about an unimportant NPC. If you do voices, that does count.
If you WANT the NPC to stay around, rule of threes. Once the players learn 3 facts about an NPC, they're a real person (that's not scientific)
tldr: Only flesh out NPC's you and your players like interacting with
Zacharias please don't mail me a pipe bomb for my opinion, I can't handle the sweat
It's always a good idea to try and flesh out your npcs. A good way to do this is to give them a unique "thing" about them, whether it be backstory, trait, look, etc. A good way to do this is find a d100 table of traits. This will help you flesh out an npc in the moment without spending too much time thinking about it. If you are designing an npc before hand, you should probably create an npc with something more unique than one on the d100 table.
The elden ring opinion (at around 13 minutes) is based. Fromsoft does not do a good job of designing around open world, especially with their quest lines. As cool as it is to find gear in a dungeon somewhere, it's less cool when the same dungeon has been copy pasted 30 times through the world and Everytime you explore one it's like a 60% chance you find one piece of gear that your character can't even use.
I've already sent in a question on instagram but it's a week delayed it seems. I think there's a semantic understanding issue, maybe, with sandbox games? I'm a DM and I've worked 3+ years in game development professionally and I'm currently taking a year to write and self publish a novel. I would call my games "sandbox" but there's so much overlap between what you describe as your linear game to what I call my sandbox game...
First up, I don't run dungeon crawls, not in the 80s/90s style. I run political sandbox games. I setup factions and key actors in the world at odds, I setup their internal conflicts just how I do for writing, and the external conflicts comes from their opposed interests. I do structure my games with some key person or faction moving towards some climactic end point and if the players don't do anything they'll succeed. But I don't detail things until players get close to them, it's like I'm zooming in on the story. Here's an example: In my ongoing 3 year sandbox campaign I had a guy who sells newspapers to the dragons as a quest available to the players (via rumours). The players heard the rumour but forgot about it. I knew he was in the world so when I needed to give them some momentum after they finished a full story arc (after the 1st year or so of the game) I 'zoomed in' on this faction and made him Raymond Reddington from The Blacklist who was able to turn up and give the party some tension. Creating this character immediately made many other existing story threads in the world become clear and far deeper. My players already had noticed many of the smaller threads, and when they ended up pulling on them it came out in a way that they felt was deeply satisfying because consistency was maintained. Hell we had almost a year long 'arc' that was the party in a crisis of faith over whether they support the Raymond Reddington character or his rival, ending in an emotional fall out with one NPC 'retiring' into the service of one of the key NPCs / factions in the world (and now on track to become a major actor opposing the party).
Do we just not have the same understanding when we say the word 'sandbox' or is there more to the differences in what you call linear play and this? To me my joy in DMing comes from the 'discovery' feeling I get with playing sandbox style games. I'm learning what the story is and providing some guidance to keep it interesting, but leaving the players to pick the broad strokes and drive the story. It's also worth noting that I do have open discussions with my players when they run out of impulse and don't know what they want to do in the world, in those moments I just give them an option to take some downtime and they will get a new update / event in X weeks. They don't often need it, but it's a simple solution to avoid the sandbox paralysis of choice...
Dope as always
One of my players cast Speak with Dead in a murder mystery one-shot asking "Who killed you?" And my player almost cried when I spoke: "It wasn't a who that killed me, but a what. Red cloak."
My player: "How did you die?" Me: "Though humanoid in shape, the moment it turned what I assumed was going to be its face towards me, every part of its body rotated violently 45 degrees against itself like glass, and shattered into my eyes."
He didn't almost cry because his 'ha! gotcha' spell didn't work, he nearly cried because the description was terrifying. He didn't cast Speak with Dead for the next 3 hours. xD
So they way my DM and I decided to Wild Magic surges for my sorcerer felt pretty fair and fun for us.
Any time I cast a leveled spell I would roll a D20 regardless of what spell it was. If I rolled a Nat 1 the spell slot got used and I instead rolled on the Wild Magic table. However whenever I rolled a Nat 20 I got to use my spell and then roll on the table. At one point I felt like I wanted it to happen more and I asked him if we could extend the rule to all my cantrips and he said sure. No one at the table minded it and it certainly made for some fun jokes at my expense at times when in the middle of battle I got turned into a useless flower pot or I would get an actual good ability and it would force me to restrategize to optimize a new tool.
I will admit it certainly felt like I had less utility than the rest of my table when it came to our sublasses, but the overall campaign was very chill and well balanced so I never felt like I was ever useless.
Once more into the fire, ladies and gentlemen!
Hey Zac, I had a moment with my DM and want your opinion on it. Context: my group, including me, is relevantly new. We understand the core mechs. Our dm is the most experienced, with a good understanding of each class and its roles. That said, I am playing a Pact of Chain Warlock within the campaign. I am currently using this subclass by making my imp turn invisible alongside shape-shifting to scout potential dangers. I have been doing this for most dangerous encounters, and this is where my dm and I disagree. My DM states that actions like this, where I take time to scout each "dangerous area," Get rid of the feeling of "danger" and "adventure" for my fellow party mates.
Furthermore, he states I am eliminating other class roles like rogue because I can check for traps and other issues. He states that my behaviors are "Abusive," challenging and are wasting time. He states it's fine that I play this way, but he is letting me know. I noted that I wasn't being abusive but instead just using the tools available to me. Another minor issue: I was called a min-maxer for looking up what stat is the best for my class and encouraging a monk party member to use their fists instead of throwing rocks. Overall, I don't know how to feel about this situation because of my lack of experience within DND. Thanks for reading this out. Have a good day.
Thanks for the video!
“The word you’re looking for is pierogi” sent me, lmao.
was on reddit (i know i know) with these idiots who were endorsing players having the "agency" to leave barovia in COS. my response to them is "why? why did you sit down to play COS if you're just going to leave it?" yes players should have agency, but not at the expense of literally not playing the game
I was in a game where early on the GM let players leave and those who chose to leave rolled new characters
Take those life breaks Zach, fun listen Mr Bold
Correct statements. Hard agree. Tedious grinds and bloated worlds aren't compelling. A good story is.
Some of the most successful and audience-pulling Actual Play games are RAILROADED AS FUCK, and that's fine - the DM and the players have an understanding that they're playing the game to entertain a non-present audience and they're good at entertaining.
Shit, I'd watch it. I'll watch Chaos Theory, of course! Of course I will!
How is this relevant to a home game?
@@steveslothstorm1155 Almost none, by design.
This is one of the heights of my week along with DND and Marching band
My favorite part in all these episodes is Zach saying he doesn't understand why people are calling him D&D Jerma, then proceeds to do "the meat grinder incident" 1:1 while raging
I feel like a good use of sandbox tools/concepts acts more like a world engine but not a replacement for the actual campaign arcs that take place within the sandbox. A macro tool for managing setting and big ideas, but not necessarily zoomed into the party level of detail.
Paused at 14:36 so this might be a moot point, bit with narratives to watch, I think a big difference is familiarity with the material. Of your players (actors) are not familiar enough to feel like they can be proactive in the world, it will feel somewhat like a ragdoll's adventure. Would my character know this? Does this exist as a concept? Has magic been used in this way, or is it a bit too meta? So on and so forth.
Without writing a short novel for world generation on the game you're running, I feel like there is an amount of out of game coordination that must be done for a game to be watched. Not perhaps into spoiler territory for your players, but maybe some extra breakdown of what it means for their characters to disseminate the knowledge or hints they have gotten.
Hope your vacation went well Zatch Bell, I was wondering how you handle experience and meta when it comes to players. I get wary if somebody's running a hexblade oathbreaker and nervous if a newer player is interested in playing an elemental monk. What measures can I take so I don't need to dictate or invalidate my players whose characters might mechanically struggle or feel the need to min/max in order to get a sense of contribution?
The best way I can describe a Sandbox story as a dm who has been running and developing a sanbox based system for more than 10 years, and while watching this video with my players and asking them they do agree they prefer this way of doing things. Not that everyone should.
Anyway imagine Tolkien was your dm. He made the history, the lore and the world of Middle Earth.
Now imagine he sits down with all this and you are playing Bilbo and your friends are the dwarves.
Tolkien might have written a story and a concept and is using Gandalf as his Oc having fun with the players yet also trying to get them to do the things they need to do or even being forced to help them from time to time even though in world hes meant to be a guide.
Point is Tolkien told his players he wanted to run a heist. First session you as Bilbo says no "I just want to sit in my house and be lazy, why would i go out there?"
Tolkien or you as a dm would be pretty pissed off. And he just said its what his character would do!!
But he eventually left and went on the adventure and chaos transpired. But it made an amazing story.
So good that those same sanbox characters came back later and had to finish the story of that ring that bilbo stole that the dm told him not to. But now its part of this world.
Point is both sides are right.
I did a "reflect damage dealt back" kind of thing once to my paladin. They had just crit, did a 5th lvl divine smight, dude was vulnerable to radiant damage, and dealt 151 damage. was so satisfying to be like "k, cool. reaction, he deals the same amount of damage back to you". obviously immediately downed the pally, boss went down shortly after, and they immediately got healed before they needed to make any saves, so it wasn't a big deal narratively, but the pally is STILL salty about that to this day. literally brought it up last sesh, definitely adding it to my bingo card. tbf, I did kind of egg em on to max level divine smite once I saw the crit. they kept going with their second attack, and I was like "yeah man, do a fourth lvl smite too, why not, he's vulnerable to it". I won't lie, that was the one time I made sure to remind them of all their special abilities and everything "oh, don't forget advanced divine smite. oh and the magic sword does an extra +3 damage, don't forget".
Alright, first question. Can't wait to get spit all over my face as you point at me aggressively
I've watched D&D for a long time, up to four years ago with JRWI Fated, Riptide, Convergence, and now Wonderlust. I've wanted to play in games, and recently got the stomach to DM for a group of friends I met online (I saw it as nerve-wracking to control the story in front of people)
Basically the plot is very story driven in the first arc, and it's very connected to one of the I'Grada in the first location, a troglodyte which is really important later in the story. I need them to meet the goober but I'm worried with how I've structured it that they just won't/Find a way to escape meeting this frog that pisses in people's hands when frightened and that it feels... Railroaded (RAILROADING RAILROADING RAILROADING). AKA, unnecessary.
All that winded wordplay to say, how do you set up and introduce villains in your campaigns? Do they just appear without the party getting to know them, are they connected to your party? Is it usually betrayals, or otherwise?
For reference, the party I'm running in 5e is:
- A pencil
- An undead bird
- A siren
- A tree
- A harpy with mommy issues and dementia
- A 4th wall breaking human
- A dragonborn with familial issues
And hopefully soon, another birb that likes lying to people
We're doing it over text as someone else is running a campaign and no one has time for 2 in person campaigns, for more context.
I fucking hate stun and in the new rules stun is nerfed because it and incapacitated doesn't drop your speed to 0
I still hate stun. Stun can eat my and your ass. We can share.
On what you said about banning verses balancing around overpowered stuff: why go through all the extra effort and adversarial, conflict breeding, nonsense of trying to balance against silvery barbes when you could just ban it or even just nerf it because really what's the downside to banning it? The players who could have benefited from it might go "aw shucks" and then they will move on and never think about it again and you will all have a better time not having to balance the game around it. And I'm zeroing in on silvery barbes here because I hate it in particular but this applies to any overpowered spell or mechanic. If it's going to give you a headache and your going to have to improvise overpowered abilities for you enemies to counter things so the game isn't ruined then why not just get to the root of the issue and ban. Your players are going to feel way more restricted if every time they try and cast silvery barbs it gets counterspelled than if you just ban it.
zach i love you
These are great; binged the previous 5 episodes a couple days ago. I've only played D&D once for sesh 0-1, but I want to DM and have the backbone of a world/story in mind. I want it more sandbox, but the introduction to the world and bbeg I give them will clearly show what linear story I want to progress through while an npc in the group only explains details through cryptic schizophrenic mumbles the group has to interperet.. How would you deal with a seemingly invincible bbeg appearing throughout the game and an npc following the party, both critical to the story finale.
Hey Zach, i have a question for the question gods. I am kinda new to Dming and i've just started a new campaign with a couple players, they just started so i think "Hey, maybe i can do xyz for this quest" but they basically refuse to interract with the story i am trying to kindly direct them towards. Example: The players have been tasked with finding a kobold wizard wich is causing problems for local villagers, they need to track him down and defeat him. They snoop around a bit in town and get to a hobbit who is selling apples, long story short one player tries to steal an apple and the hobbit tries to stop her, the other players respond with f*cking impaling the hobbit with a javelin right through the head, in broad daylight infront of around 30 people, killing the entire guard force of the town in the process. How am i supposed to get them to engage in the story? I don't really want to prepare for hours only for them to ignore the story and me having to bend the entire preperations i had previously done just so i can maybe get them to do a quest. I would be super duper thankfull if you featured this in the episode.
The players killed the town guard?
1: The wizards life just got easier since the town is unprotected.
2: New hired guards are gonna be much stronger. Higher level bounty hunters, mercenaries, etc. Improvising plots and twisting events around players can be hard, but it is a learnable skill.
Quests are a metagame tool to direct the players in the world that is already happening. The baddies plans continue whether or not the players get involved. (Unlike a DMs plans that always go awry. )
You do need to have a full conversation with your players about what your expectations are and what their expectations are! They might not be a good group for the style of game you wanted.
@@zileris Thanks for the tip, appreciate it!
Genuinely, longer episodes are better. I don't know anyone who wants short episodes of anything. If it's for you, then no worries. Understandable. But, for us? More is good!
Hey Zach I'm curious about your opinion, I'm currently in a 5e rise of tiamat campaign my party is level 4 and in our first dungeon the DM gave our Barbarian an antimatter gun, Druid a +1 laser rifle, rogue a +2 laser pistol and me the paladin a +1 musket. I'm not very fond of the idea of giving everyone such powerful weapons so early and weapons that kinda nullify the point of our classes I've decided to not use the musket since it doesn't make sense to use it being a paladin but I think in any combat encounters I'm practically going to be useless compared to what everyone else has. Am I thinking about this too much or do I have some reasoning for this train of thought?
Alternate history campaigns sound cool but with my poor knowledge of history and general sleep deprivation, I'm worried I would somehow start accidentally citing the campaign events as real (I'd probably sound insane like "Guys remember when the US sent dogs to space and they came back with one extra and when they analysed them all in quarantine it turned out to be an alien? What do you mean that never happened? Hey why are you walking away-")
I am finally in the before the first hour after posting mark
I think you misunderstood the post about the forever dm character.
It's one thing if they finally get to play, and decide to make God's chosen with perfect stats.
It's another thing if they built their character to help others reach higher potential.
Based on the post, it sounds like the latter. The OP even stated that the dms reason for hampering their character was because they didn't want the OP to give them best in slot equipment. This would only happen if the dm gave them all the materials and time required to do so. And even then, it's not like the OP was being selfish and the main character. It sounds like they wanted to play an arms dealer, and the dm went and added skill checks to breath correctly.
That being said, this is one side of the story.
Hi Mr. Bach the Zold, I would like your opinion on a matter. I'm first time GM-ing a campaign and because of my inexperience the beginning of the campaign wasn't tied together as well as it should have been, so one of my player's character evolved in a way such that they are not completely aligned with the rest of the party. (This happened both because he made stupid choices whose consequences drastically changed how he played the character after he realized he couldn't just YOLO into massive enemy camps, and because the story setup wasn't very good due to my inexperience.) He wants to try to fix this by starting a new character that will have more reason to adventure with the party, hopefully increasing party cohesion. However, I have already written a quite extensive plot line for this character's backstory that also was supposed to be an important part of the main story. It looks like this player wants to make the character switch in a few sessions, so we won't have time to get to the important plot line related to his character before he switches characters.
What would you recommend I do with the main storyline? Should I rewrite it to salvage the most interesting story points, or should I just let it happen in the background and then let the characters see the results of the unfinished storyline? I have already told him I'd allow him to change his character because I want to make sure he's still having fun playing in our sessions, but I'm thinking that maybe I should have pushed back until we get to a point in the campaign where his current character's "part to play" has finished. Not sure what to do.
I'd love to hear you(r opinion) rage about this!
what do you think of D&D representation in media (Stranger things, D&D movies/shows, Video game collaborations, etc.) Do you think it represents the game well, or have any personal opinions on the subject in general?
Where would you suggest a new D&D player should buy a good set of dice from?
Hey Zach, I am more of a newer DM, I was wondering if this was a rlly bad way to make the story with "sandbox" mentality to it and the villains are based on PC backstories.
Let me explain the Sandbox mentality I am talking about. I made the entire world with points of interests so that in the case they didn't go directly (x) where I wanted them to go I still have content to fill in and could connect it to the story later. Idk if that is just a normal thing or not
My "house rule" (it's technically RAW) for wild magic is if their Tides of Chaos is used, WHENEVER they cast a spell that uses a slot wild magic is rolled.
Best takes!!
Yeah I agree with ur eldin ring opinion
I think I prefer linear games as opposed to open world games usually, but a game like Elden Ring is a nice game I can play when I want to listen to a podcasr or something
Cowboy bebop straight up with bang. You're gonna carry That weight.
i AM HERE FOR THE SWEAT SHIRT/TOWEL
wait you're saying you don't like running half way across the map for weapon upgrades so you can actually play the game?
Ronaldo? Like Stable Ronaldo, the faze clan streamer? I knew there was a reason I liked you 😄
Hi Zach, I have one question for you: How the hell did you make the cubed hard boiled egg?
ZACK WE ARE THE SAME ON DS1/DS3 AND ELDEN RING I AM HEARD
say it with me now HE HAS YET TO MISS
What's your favourite monster? Do you homebrew your own?
Boring aside, wild magic sorcerer is entirely a joke class. In even a semi-serious setting, from an in-world perspective, when there are adventurers that you can choose to join up with, who in their right mind would travel with the guy who might randomly turn them into a snail or blow themselves up? Adventuring is already perilous enough without having to worry about whether your ally is going to randomly fuck things up.
Do you have a Link to this Chaos Theory Twitch channel? I can't find it...
I fully agree with that dark souls opinion. Elden Ring is at its best when you're in those legacy dungeons and not just running around on torrent fighting the same reskinned foot soldiers.
I think this guy should do DND skit in short form format. he'd be funny i guess
I LOVE MONDAYS
Why isnt this episode 12h long!?
13:00 both good🦍
Aw yeah, another Monday, another hour of getting to listen to an angry D&D nerd man malding about random topics.
Why is having full plate and a shield make you OP to most DMs?
that pf game with the newbie dm sounds like pf1e not pf2e... magic item crafting in 1e is insane as to crafting in 2e which takes 4 days of downtime. also sounds like a new panicky dm
Not enough rage in the first half of this one.
Talked about railroading without screaming "railroad" over again.
Smh.
are you Zach Foss who used to do RPG Maker?
HI ZACH
Day 1 of me asking Zach to move to Florida. It's even hotter but no one will judge you for complaining about it