Justin, OT -- but I have to put this here in chance you see it. My 7 year old daughter and I have been playing "Magical Kitties Save the Day", that you co-wrote, and we are having an incredible time, this is not only a wonderful RPG game for children, it is a wonderful RPG game, period. the system, the world, it is all so well done -- thank you for your involvement with it.
Hilariously, I had just had a situation where a player's lines were crossed in-game by another player; they were so upset they thought about pulling out of the game. So to cool off, I came over to TH-cam, and what do I find but the most apt thumbnail in the world staring me in the face: "YOUR GAME IS DOOMED!!!"
I set the fundamental expectation that players create and play characters that cooperate and support one another. The character that doesn’t adhere to this is retired and a new one takes their place.
It happened recently on my OSE group and I decided we would split the campaigns, with the same groups, controlling one character on each campagin. For one group, it was easy, since the leaving player could choose between 3 other interesting hirelings to start playing right away. In the end they decided to stick together, but they liked this option, especially since recovery and downtime can be long in those kinds of games.
This obviously needs to be done very carefully, but when you have a major character-based fork in the road and one character leaves the party, you may be able to bring back the character as an NPC antagonist who is (obviously) intimately tied to the group in a way very difficult to attain otherwise. The paladin who chose to leave the party rather than work alongside a necromancer becomes a recurring antagonist who dogs the party's steps, waiting for them to break the law or even leading soldiers to attempt to kill or capture the party.
do you ever see a channel in your sub feed that you have no memory of subscribing to, but can see why you would have subscribed? good content, good shirt, no idea how i got here
If a character is incompatible with the party, I try to work with the player. The DM and player cooperate to find an excuse to keep the character around or a narrative beat that changes their personality. If there isn’t a believable or satiating way to fit the character to the party, that player needs a new character. If that player is unwilling to play a character that matches the party, that’s a player problem. We’re not all interested in playing the same game. That’s okay, but it’s probably time to part ways.
As with each of your videos, this is going straight to the quick-access toolbar of my DM-brain. I am grateful to live in a time where I have your thoughts to draw upon.
I decided to run storm kings thunder but we follow a unique party for every giant lord with the overarching story of a guild based out of phandalin uncovering the drama with Imyrith and the storm court. 2 years later, were about to head to her lair with the final party and all the other parties, and the allies everyone made making up the small army that's marching on her lair, been a blast but it took and will take a Ton of work
"I don't want to run that campaign" vs "I don't want to be without a game to run" "I don't want to force some players to retire their characters" vs "I don't want to juggle multiple games" I appreciate the encouragement but I wish you made more of an argument for why. It's not really explained in your video how to overcome the reasons why people don't do what you suggest. I think calling it an axiom downplays the reasons why folks don't want to split the campaign.
sounds like YOU didn't want to run that campaign :) watch the video again ! i had fun with a split for solo albums and was awesome to bring it back together for the finale.
@@hawkthetraveler6344 I ran the split campaign for a month, 4 weeks of three different people in three different places (with different goals) because no one wanted to adventure with the rest of the group. If the party doesn't want to adventure together, there's not much I can do to edge them back (and I tried). It's also not fun for the GM to have to run 3 solo games and keep track of how each one affects the others. Been a long time since this campaign, but I learned a lot. I appreciate the reply, but I try to get my player's goals centered early in a campaign from now on and only divert if it feels like it will feed back into the party's main goal.
This would probably be impossible to do, but the intro got me wondering: if such a thing happened in my game, would it be possible for me to let the party split like that, then form a new adventuring party, with the same players, around the split? Then run adventures in an alternating manner, some weeks we focus on the paladin's party, other weeks focusing on the rogue's party...until the two parties come into conflict, and we have a battle where the players are literally fighting their own characters from the other party.
100%! I've done that, in fact. It's also possible that, rather than fighting, the two groups will come together again. At that point you might be able to transition to troupe-style play (future video!). I've also seen it resolve where one of the groups adventures for a bit, then rides off into the sunset while our focus shifts back exclusively to the other group. (For any number of reasons.)
I think this makes the most sense. There is nothing wrong with a player retiring a character that doesn't fit the game and making something new that does.
I have had to do that on two different occasions, so I speak from firsthand experience about the pros and cons of doing so. On the one hand, it can allow you to tailor make a character that fits the campaign better, as in the second occasion I had to do it. It was a Pathfinder/3.5 campaign and the issue was not knowing enough about the campaign setting ahead of time. The DM had allowed me to play a telekineticist, but I ended up feeling a bit sidelined compared to the gunslinger that was also in the party. Telekineticist just lack the same degree of DPS compared to a gunslinger, especially when you secretly know that the player fudges their rolls. But the backstory also eventually lead to a natural splitting up point where the character had a decent reason to move on. So I created a new character, but I was still interested in the mechanics of the kineticist. So I created a pyrokineticist with hydrokinetics as a secondary element. This worked out much better, as my damage output increased dramatically and I got to make a character that fit the world better. Ironically, all I did was say that since my previous character was a half elf, this was his full blooded parent, justifying in the world how I was playing a second character with such a rare class. But that's different from the first time I had to do this. In the first instance, it wasn't my own dissatisfaction that lead to the change, but the other players objecting to my roleplaying decisions. This was pure 3.5 rules, and I was playing a sorcerer. The other players had some meta knowledge about the alignment of giant eagles being neutral, so in the encounter, they wanted to talk them down (they also have an intelligence high enough to do that). When they got aggressive, though I chose to strike first with a spell that dealt nonlethal damage but destroyed their nest and most of their eggs. They felt like my character did something evil, but I felt it was justified both because they were initiating combat and who cares if they are neutral aligned, and because the 3.5 predecessor of dragon born have some weird characteristics I was playing to (this was the only race in 3.5 that got a charisma bonus for some reason). This more fundamental conflict between players made changing characters much harder to do without feeling cheated of a chance to play a character that I really liked and a class I hadn't tried before. I did like the following character, but the campaign soon came to an end due to problems organizing the players. So it really isn't a good solution in all cases, especially if the player feels pressured by the other party members or GM. You have to remember that people get attached to the characters they design.
@@formlessone8246 If the rest of the players start to feel a level of antagonism toward one character, the GM can lean into making it an NPC and a recurring villain. There are extreme cases of players wanting to switch their character after every session...
@@estebanrodriguez5409 that actually is what we settled on between me and the DM (same DM as the Pathfinder game, incidentally). We had the idea that my old character was an imposter going by the same name as my new character, justifying the new character's entrance to the party as him finally hunting down the man tarnishing his reputation. The sorcerer was allowed by the DM to escape to in theory become a recurring antagonist. But things still fell apart after one session, maybe two.
Justin, OT -- but I have to put this here in chance you see it. My 7 year old daughter and I have been playing "Magical Kitties Save the Day", that you co-wrote, and we are having an incredible time, this is not only a wonderful RPG game for children, it is a wonderful RPG game, period. the system, the world, it is all so well done -- thank you for your involvement with it.
I'm so glad your daughter and you have been enjoying it! My daughter is also 7, so it's easy for me to imagine her enthusiasm!
Hilariously, I had just had a situation where a player's lines were crossed in-game by another player; they were so upset they thought about pulling out of the game. So to cool off, I came over to TH-cam, and what do I find but the most apt thumbnail in the world staring me in the face: "YOUR GAME IS DOOMED!!!"
and here I am, wishing I had those kinds of problems on my table. When my most recurring problem is that we manage to organize ourselves to play
The secret is shackling your players to the table and never letting them leave your dungeon.
(Pun intended.)
Here to make my sacrifice to the Dread Algorithm, oh high priest.
Great video! Looking forward to the trouple play video.
We thank thee in rhe name of the algorithm!
Your book should be arriving later today. Looking forward to diving into it.
I set the fundamental expectation that players create and play characters that cooperate and support one another. The character that doesn’t adhere to this is retired and a new one takes their place.
Love how consistently insightful your videos are. Even when they cover something I think I know I almost always get something of value from them.
Thanks!
Justin still has the best calls to action on this platform. I'd also love to hear more about troupe dynamics!
It happened recently on my OSE group and I decided we would split the campaigns, with the same groups, controlling one character on each campagin. For one group, it was easy, since the leaving player could choose between 3 other interesting hirelings to start playing right away. In the end they decided to stick together, but they liked this option, especially since recovery and downtime can be long in those kinds of games.
Very interested in your thoughts on troupe play.
This obviously needs to be done very carefully, but when you have a major character-based fork in the road and one character leaves the party, you may be able to bring back the character as an NPC antagonist who is (obviously) intimately tied to the group in a way very difficult to attain otherwise. The paladin who chose to leave the party rather than work alongside a necromancer becomes a recurring antagonist who dogs the party's steps, waiting for them to break the law or even leading soldiers to attempt to kill or capture the party.
do you ever see a channel in your sub feed that you have no memory of subscribing to, but can see why you would have subscribed? good content, good shirt, no idea how i got here
Great to have you here!
If a character is incompatible with the party, I try to work with the player. The DM and player cooperate to find an excuse to keep the character around or a narrative beat that changes their personality. If there isn’t a believable or satiating way to fit the character to the party, that player needs a new character. If that player is unwilling to play a character that matches the party, that’s a player problem. We’re not all interested in playing the same game. That’s okay, but it’s probably time to part ways.
100%.
Another wonderful video, Justin!
Thanks!
As with each of your videos, this is going straight to the quick-access toolbar of my DM-brain. I am grateful to live in a time where I have your thoughts to draw upon.
I decided to run storm kings thunder but we follow a unique party for every giant lord with the overarching story of a guild based out of phandalin uncovering the drama with Imyrith and the storm court. 2 years later, were about to head to her lair with the final party and all the other parties, and the allies everyone made making up the small army that's marching on her lair, been a blast but it took and will take a Ton of work
OMG, that sounds amazing! What an incredibly cool campaign!
"I don't want to run that campaign" vs "I don't want to be without a game to run"
"I don't want to force some players to retire their characters" vs "I don't want to juggle multiple games"
I appreciate the encouragement but I wish you made more of an argument for why. It's not really explained in your video how to overcome the reasons why people don't do what you suggest. I think calling it an axiom downplays the reasons why folks don't want to split the campaign.
Great video Sir. Always enjoy them and very informative.
Thanks!
As a GM who has tried to run a split campaign, it doesn't work. It only adds more work on the GM.
sounds like YOU didn't want to run that campaign :) watch the video again ! i had fun with a split for solo albums and was awesome to bring it back together for the finale.
@@hawkthetraveler6344 I ran the split campaign for a month, 4 weeks of three different people in three different places (with different goals) because no one wanted to adventure with the rest of the group. If the party doesn't want to adventure together, there's not much I can do to edge them back (and I tried). It's also not fun for the GM to have to run 3 solo games and keep track of how each one affects the others. Been a long time since this campaign, but I learned a lot.
I appreciate the reply, but I try to get my player's goals centered early in a campaign from now on and only divert if it feels like it will feed back into the party's main goal.
Great video. Help me understand some of my incongruous assumptions
Thanks for the good video. I like the shirt!
It's my favorite t-shirt! Glad you enjoyed the video!
If I can get a long-planned campaign, I would push for a stable of characters.
This would probably be impossible to do, but the intro got me wondering: if such a thing happened in my game, would it be possible for me to let the party split like that, then form a new adventuring party, with the same players, around the split? Then run adventures in an alternating manner, some weeks we focus on the paladin's party, other weeks focusing on the rogue's party...until the two parties come into conflict, and we have a battle where the players are literally fighting their own characters from the other party.
100%! I've done that, in fact.
It's also possible that, rather than fighting, the two groups will come together again. At that point you might be able to transition to troupe-style play (future video!).
I've also seen it resolve where one of the groups adventures for a bit, then rides off into the sunset while our focus shifts back exclusively to the other group. (For any number of reasons.)
I'm in favor of a player changing their PC if they don't see it working in the narrative.
I think this makes the most sense. There is nothing wrong with a player retiring a character that doesn't fit the game and making something new that does.
I have had to do that on two different occasions, so I speak from firsthand experience about the pros and cons of doing so. On the one hand, it can allow you to tailor make a character that fits the campaign better, as in the second occasion I had to do it. It was a Pathfinder/3.5 campaign and the issue was not knowing enough about the campaign setting ahead of time. The DM had allowed me to play a telekineticist, but I ended up feeling a bit sidelined compared to the gunslinger that was also in the party. Telekineticist just lack the same degree of DPS compared to a gunslinger, especially when you secretly know that the player fudges their rolls. But the backstory also eventually lead to a natural splitting up point where the character had a decent reason to move on. So I created a new character, but I was still interested in the mechanics of the kineticist. So I created a pyrokineticist with hydrokinetics as a secondary element. This worked out much better, as my damage output increased dramatically and I got to make a character that fit the world better. Ironically, all I did was say that since my previous character was a half elf, this was his full blooded parent, justifying in the world how I was playing a second character with such a rare class.
But that's different from the first time I had to do this. In the first instance, it wasn't my own dissatisfaction that lead to the change, but the other players objecting to my roleplaying decisions. This was pure 3.5 rules, and I was playing a sorcerer. The other players had some meta knowledge about the alignment of giant eagles being neutral, so in the encounter, they wanted to talk them down (they also have an intelligence high enough to do that). When they got aggressive, though I chose to strike first with a spell that dealt nonlethal damage but destroyed their nest and most of their eggs. They felt like my character did something evil, but I felt it was justified both because they were initiating combat and who cares if they are neutral aligned, and because the 3.5 predecessor of dragon born have some weird characteristics I was playing to (this was the only race in 3.5 that got a charisma bonus for some reason). This more fundamental conflict between players made changing characters much harder to do without feeling cheated of a chance to play a character that I really liked and a class I hadn't tried before. I did like the following character, but the campaign soon came to an end due to problems organizing the players. So it really isn't a good solution in all cases, especially if the player feels pressured by the other party members or GM. You have to remember that people get attached to the characters they design.
@@formlessone8246 If the rest of the players start to feel a level of antagonism toward one character, the GM can lean into making it an NPC and a recurring villain.
There are extreme cases of players wanting to switch their character after every session...
@@estebanrodriguez5409 that actually is what we settled on between me and the DM (same DM as the Pathfinder game, incidentally). We had the idea that my old character was an imposter going by the same name as my new character, justifying the new character's entrance to the party as him finally hunting down the man tarnishing his reputation. The sorcerer was allowed by the DM to escape to in theory become a recurring antagonist. But things still fell apart after one session, maybe two.
more excellent advice as always!
Thanks!
Love the content you've been putting out lately. I have tons of videos to check out. When can I order your book on game mastering?
You can order it now!
thealexandrian.net/so-you-want-to-be-a-game-master
Always waiting for the next vid 😊
More to come soon!
what if the paladin is the issue!
Ridiculous! My god says that I'm never the issue!