It's a true statement. But... how many GMs don't already know this? Are there really GMs that are so disconnected from any sense of narrative positioning that they don't think choice can create advantage?
@@PanicSatanic Taken as a blanket statement like that, it seems obvious, but even though DMs may agree with it at face value they may still have players rolling far more often than not.
the following line feels also quite important to "Having a good idea can be enough to earn a minor advantage..." the decisions of the party are rewarded and rolls are made with Risk/reward factors that enhance the game.
@@PanicSatanic Tons of GMs don't already know this. Remember, he doesn't just say "advantage", he says "*an* advantage". Not just "good idea, roll with advantage", but "good idea, here's how you change the circumstances of the encounter".
The players need to have a basic understanding of the outcomes of success and failure, but *within* that understanding ("if we succeed, we open the door") you can have a LOT of fun surprising them with dope results.
In response to video cards: if the video seems interesting, I tend to open it in a new tab, and will decide when the current video is done whether I will watch it then or add to watch later.
I think the only thing that annoys me about this topic - it popped up on the 5e facebook group a bit back - is DMs asking for rolls for impossible tasks. Like, if the only outcome of a task is a failure either the roll just determines grades of failure or there is no point in the roll. But either way, you should be communicating that in some way to your players.
Check out the Dungeon Coach video regarding his take on Success vs. Failure... he has a Neutral range that neither helps nor hinders the party, which suggests to me that dramatic tension can be ratcheted in a way that isn't so yes/no.
A term I think is very useful is "shoelacing". It refers to the players filling in the question, "What do you do?" with the most mundane, unexciting action to take in that moment, and if you combine that with a system that says all actions are somehow tied to dice rolls, you get people asking if they succeed in putting on their shoes.
This and also they never think Out of their Charakter Sheets. In DnD ITS relatively fine, but in Games with lots of abilities newbies tend to use them like Options in an adventure-game. I Just had it some weeks ago. The Party wanted to Pass a Gate with to guards and the new Player started scanning His Charakter Sheet in search "what he could do" since you solve Problems with die rolling and this are the Thing you Roll on. Completely missing the Point, that the fun of a ttrpg ist, that He could solve it in every way imaginable.
That's funny, I have always described my criticism of rolling for mundane tasks as "asking to roll to put your shoes on." Another metric I use is if I or the player can do it easily in real life, their hero character probably doesn't need to roll to do it.
When we used to play Iron Crown we used to joke that there were rules and rolls for tying your shoelaces :). I swear that someone had a critical failure on it, became unbalanced and broke their ankle :lol:
At a game of Masks at a con, I was asked to roll to Unleash My Powers to simply go to the crime scene we had been summoned to in the opening narration. I failed. The GM then just had me roll again. Why?
Another good piece of advice I heard, I think from Johnny Chiodini, is "Don't make your players roll for something you don't want them to fail." I feel like this can take a little pressure off the DM and just let the players do cool stuff sometimes, even when it's planned for.
Johnny's oxventure videos are a masterclass in understanding what rules to keep and what rules to eschew for the sake of narrative and fun. their combat are unlike any other actual play I've seen cause they just let their players do stuff and be cool for a bit, and then the next character gets to do stuff and be cool. it's low stakes and the oxventurers steamroll almost every co bat encounter but oxventure is a low stakes campaign by desihn (mechanically at least) so it works
@@nines3048Co bat encounter: when someone shows up in their homemade Batman-costume and insists on helping, even though they’re completely incompetent, and always gets in the way. Roll Bluff to give them non-hazardous busywork elsewhere.
I would hate playing with a DM that decided what he wanted the outcome to be would determine whether or not a roll is required. Railroading sucks and it’s no fun for anyone.
@@Shannovian I think the quote is actually something like “that you’re not prepared for them to fail.” Basically, if you absolutely need a success to progress the story, arrange it so that it makes sense they don’t need to roll for it, and then don’t make them roll.
I’ve started changing my mindset to where sometimes a low roll on the dice isn’t reflective of a character’s ineptitude, but rather a consequence of circumstance or an opposed character’s skill stopping them. Examples: You rolled a 1 on your Nature check - you don’t fail because all of a sudden you don’t know how to follow tracks after spending your whole life in the woods, but rather a recent rain has muddied the tracks so much you aren’t able to discern details. A 1 on that Persuasion roll doesn’t mean your character is suddenly a babbling idiot, but rather the shopkeeper/merchant just isn’t interested in buying your magic sword because they specialize in art and pottery. You’re in combat and you rolled a Nat 1? Your Fighter doesn’t suddenly forget how to use their spear properly and accidentally stabs themself in the foot - instead the cultist pulled a hidden dagger out at the last moment and you had to swing wide in order to not get hit yourself etc etc
@@elcapitanofthemtn Yeah, the dice isn't a representation of a person vacillating between competence and ineptitude (or not just that). It's a representation of chaos and luck. People who are better skilled, are better at dealing with chaos/problems that come up, they have the ability to compensate for it. A low roll means things were harder than they seemed, and your skills couldn't make up for it. It's kind of how a missed attack because of AC isn't a miss, it's the armour doing it's job, or the enemy dodging. The numbers are an abstraction of the events, not a rating of them. When you succeed, you've managed to corral chance enough by tipping the scale through individual skill. I mean it can also be individual incompetence, there are plenty of days I am terrible at things I know I'm good at. But it shouldn't always, or even often be.
Also, there's the Immersionist/OSR thing of "describe your character's interactions with the world, and if logically you discover something or cause an effect in the course of that, it occurs with no roll necessary." So much more fun than perception/investigation checks to find treasure or a secret door!
Yeah. Something the OSR has really added to my "Advice to give new GM's" is: Try running a few sessions with zero dice rolls. Just let the players describe their actions and as the GM decide what the results are. For everything. In some cases you are going to make bad calls. In some cases you are going to make REALLY bad calls. Sometimes you may look at a situation and think "The only way this resolves is with the character's death" and you will have to just make that decision and live with it. And at the end of that experience you'll have gained confidence with your ability to make decisions, and also gained valuable experience in deciding when a roll is necessary. All the times where you stopped and said "im making this call, but it doesn't feel quite right" Those are the times where you leave it to the dice.
@@davidhorrocks5170 As my groups forever dm, when I've had a few games as a player recently, I've realised some things similar to this irk me, then I've also realised as a dm I do similarly annoying things. It's crazy how much a different perspective can help. Just like your comment, it's made me realise again I probably do similar things. I think sometimes as a DM you just have a lot on your plate, and asking for a roll can give me a few more seconds to think. Really I need to just be okay with taking a few moments to think of a more interesting and satisfying outcome. Thanks for the realisation!
Wholeheartedly disagree. Now its a game about playerskill, not character skill. Best make the barbarian smash doors irl and the wizard cast spells too.
I consider myself a longtime DM, though not by some standards. I’ve been DMing for about 9 years now. But I CONSTANTLY find your videos useful as reference point. This video I can already tell will be incredibly useful to me. There are many aspects of my DMing that I consider subpar. Im constantly looking to improve. But I can’t always tell what needs improving, and my players can’t always articulate it either. This video introduces a new step for me, and easy one to remember and practice- when I a player wants to do something, try to think of dramatic outcomes for any roll of the dice. Simple, useful, and has the potential to change my game.
Agreed. I’ve been dming for many years, & this is gold. I had not often thought about what could happen if they fail, (or sometimes even if they succeed). I think I’ve been doing it as a stall tactic: ‘I don’t know, so maybe the dice itself will inspire me.’ But, that has led to some bland moments &, especially when it’s kept happening, an encounter that drags out hard. I could’ve just started with, “You kick the door down!” & gotten onto the next thing where I do have something cool in mind!
Love that, and good luck to you. I have put a bit of thought into this concept before and two things we have started saying at my table have really elevated the game experience. "Rule of cool, let it happen" and "Flavor is free. How do you want it to look?". I've been DMing for a long time and have recently found myself playing with a lot of new players. Allowing them to do the narratively cool thing and have their moments has led to better party interaction.
Well, that might actually be a misunderstanding of the point of this video. I think Matt is not suggesting that you turn every activity into something dramatic. If you try to make every action a possible surprise, your players will get burned out quickly. There really should be a reason in the narrative, some inherent drama or tension present. If not, just turning the mundane into something more will simply overwhelm and possibly frighten your players. They'll think twice before asking for something that might require a roll.
DM from the 70's being reborn. Love the dramatic storytelling aspect. You are really good at explaining complex ideas. I'm stealing this one. Make obstacle challenges meaningful and creative, foot kicked a hole in the door, inspired me. What broke my train of thought is when you said, don't even make them roll, make them tell you how they did it! Brilliant! Thank you.
I ran a fighter a while back who was always kicking doors in, often with reckless abandon. It was his thing If I failed a roll on a kick and got my character’s foot stuck in the door, I would have been ECSTATIC! Nothing brings me more joy in combat than when it’s dictated by the environment.
This description of interesting narrative failures cleaves pretty close to an idea I picked up from the system Blades In the Dark, which is “success at cost”. Sometimes a failed roll doesn’t mean that the player outright failed at what they were trying to do, but rather that they succeeded, but now there’s some other complication they now have to deal with - like kicking open the door but now your foot is stuck in it.
My favorite houserule is to give players auto-success on trivial tasks if they have the proper proficiency. I like to use this specifically when I need drop exposition about a new locale or concept the players are hearing about; if one of the players has proficiency in the appropriate knowledge skill (Arcana, History, Religion, etc), I'll just _give_ them the lore drop. On one hand, it solves the problem of players missing out on lore just because they rolled low, and on the other it makes players feel rewarded that they invested in a particular knowledge skill. It also allows me to pick and choose _when_ to lore drop and about which topics, that way I'm not just spewing lore nonstop at my players.
Yeah Lore checks are a funny thing. Because I know a ton of stuff, I don't have to try to know it, if the context emerges, I think about it, possibly even if I don't want to. But there are things I've forgotten, or literally have to piece together because I know bits and pieces of it, or just haven't thought about it in the proper context. When it comes to simple recall, I look at a PC's experiences, training profs, and background, I usually just don't ask and simply tell them the basic info. When it comes to something that they might not know, but there's a chance they heard about it, because it's obscure or weird, and they could know it wrong, I ask for a roll. I've almost always decided they know something, but it's how well that we might roll on. If I'm asking for, or granting a roll, you'll always get *some* information. As far as I'm concerned, you knowing *something* is what the check represents.
The problem is the players are really addicted to rolling that icosahedron, even if they end of tripping and falling off the horse. Also when I click on the thingy up in the top right corner, it pauses this video, and opens a new tab with the new video. Kinda odd that it does not have a little "plus" icon button that just lets me add it to my watch later que.
I often use skill checks to determine how quickly the players figure it out, not necessarily *if* they succeed. It is very useful to avoid situations where the story levers might otherwise be hidden. A result under the DC just means it takes longer, more effort, or expends additional resources without blocking story progress.
This is an instant classic Matt Colville video. The advice, tone and presentation are perfect, and it's something you can use right away in your game tonight. I might go so far to say this video is quintessential Matthew Colville. It is a joy to watch someone do something so well!
Even an experienced DM is still learning new techniques and tactics. I've been running for near on 20 years and I still watch videos like this to help improve and refine the craft.
When it comes to basic fundamentals like this, I appreciate it as a seasoned DM. It makes me reflect on how I have been running the game and I usually feel like I have more fine-tuning to be doing. I think I can work on having die rolls produce tension, and just letting my players succeed when it doesn't (and the task isn't too difficult).
As someone who plays a lot of adventure games, having a concrete state of success helps move the story forward and I know for a fact I feel less frustrated when I know what the outcome of my actions are.
@@MrSilvUr Not explicitly. Yes, they are similar admonitions, and the venn diagram overlaps a lot, but "only roll when pass/fail both add drama" and "say yes or roll dice" are not the same thing. I would actually argue that "only roll when pass/fail both add drama" is one of many decision making tools for doing "say yes or roll dice".
That part about more advanced DMs needing more specific advise in on point. A year ago I would ask people about combat balance and “hey, maybe have _20_ CR 1/2 enemies is wayyy too difficult cause of action economy alone” and I’d be like “wow I never knew!” Now I’m trying to balance an encounter to be potentially deadly- like, fully comfortable with 1-2 PC deaths- and it really comes down to “you know your party better than we do.” There’s probably no one else in the world who’s running Curse of Strahd, only has about a year and a half of experience, running for a table of 5 Forever DM’s, with 6 PC’s of their specific subclasses, 2 specific allies, and my specific changes to the enemy NPCs. So I kinda have to just go for what I feel will work
I like to give my players both potential outcomes beforehand and let them decide if they still want to roll. They may decide it isn't worth the risk, but they almost always choose to roll, anyway. Since they know the risk beforehand, I can be a lot more confident with really increasing the stakes, which makes for some fun and exciting moments and incredible tension at the table. It can make successes way more fun because the player knows what they just narrowly avoided and just how bad it could have been for their character. I got this idea from another DM, and I loved how it changed a simple skill check into such a dramatic and exciting moment that had the whole party cheering when the player succeeded, and resulted in some pretty unforgettable moments.
lukewarm take: There's something to be said about indulging players with softball checks. How many times has a DM gone to reddit saying 'how do I make skill checks challenging for the rogue if they're roll +10 on expertise skills?' But the thing is, that player invested multiple steps into making their character good at those particular set of skills. Let them have that fantasy of high competence instead of deciding that all the doors in the kingdom have magically gotten stronger, in the same way a wizard should be finding cool new spells and a fighter should be finding a cool magic weapon.
also, re: mount video: Fantastic idea, would love to hear tips less about the individual mounts and more about how to make mounts work in general (how to keep a nominal amount of balance, how to make them relevant, and how to make them living beings and not walking motorcycles that you park outside of the dungeon).
5:50 Felt like answering this: On a desktop, I can at least just click the video with M3 (my mouse wheel) and open it in a new tab for later. But yeah, what TH-cam expects is an enigma for the sages.
I feel we've heard this many times during live streams - but it's still useful to repeat this. Since shifting to a more OSR gm style this has been a constant thing I deal with, deciding when rolls are required and making them matter when they happen.
I've always felt like the OSR mindset is that if you're rolling, you probably screwed up somehow. Your chances of success are SO low early on it's like you want to treat everything as a last-resort "saving throw" if players don't come up with something that's bound to work.
@@colbyboucher6391 I'm probably going to run Old School Essentials at some point and you know I'm going to handle searching room and resolving traps narratively where possible
@@lizzycorvus5109 I've always liked tying traps into TheAngryGM's "tension dice" concept (even if The AngryGM is kind of insufferable). Basically, spending time in dungeons = more encounters. By default I assume the party is moving slowly and carefully, and always checking for traps. So I let them just see that there's a trap and figure out how to disarm it. If they choose to move less carefully to save time... that's when they might stumble into something.
One thing I would like to add here if noone else has which i deal with in my games as a DM. Sometimes the players ask for a roll to do a check even if I had no intention of failing them for the check or if I deemed already that the task was impossible. I find that rather than saying "You dont need to roll" my players have found it enjoyable too roll and then I tell them what it achieved. For example, if a player decides to search for a clue in a temple room even when there is literally nothing there for them to find and asks for a roll. Rather than say there is nothing there you can allow them to find a piece of lore or history about the place that is not necesarrly benefical to them at the moment but gives greater insight into something down the line. If they fail you can have them trip on a rock as they are distracted looking for clues or somthing, i usually keep it comedic so as to not punish them for engaing in a smart or roleplay appropriate manner. Saying all this I do agree that there are definately times when rolling should not be used and even in this example the rule here holds true, if you cant think of somthing to supprise the players then its better to not role. Just thought I would give my imput as a relatively new DM who has benefitted greatly from the running the game seriers. Huge thank you to @mcolville for making ttrpgs so much more fun for me and my friends.
My rule of thumb is: Rolls when things are hard and they could fail or have a hard time, and when things could be funny if they flub a roll. The hard rolls could cause some danger or road blocks if they don't make the roll (anything below a DC 12 isn't really pointful). The flub roll, for example trying to not drop a cake on your friend. Usually this rolls isn't usually hard, (DC 10 or less) but if they fail it could be entertaining. One thing I also do when it comes to some check, Success with complications: if they are checking coats in a closet and don't roll very well at all, they might rip a coat or drop the coat rack. This is not a fail state, they still find clues in the coats, but now they might get in trouble.
7:14 I disagree. I've been a DM since Modlvay and still find videos like these to be informative if not affirmative of my choices. I had an oils instructor who was always reminding us that the moment you feel you know your technique, it's time to learn it again. It's why every time D&D comes out with a starter set, I buy it and run it for my players.
Matt, I sure you get comments like this all the time. However, you truly are an amazing inspiration for DMs and those who are to afraid to DMs. No matter the topic of the video, you express the ways in which everyone can accomplish the task at hand without putting out the message “this is the correct and only way to do it”. You give great and introspective advice for people to truly determined the way in which they can rationalize their own opinion and style to perform the ever changing and exhausting experience of a DM. Your advice is truly helpful and is greatly appreciated and I hope you continue to do more. From all those who appreciate you.
Great video. Appreciate the short length and focus on a practical topic! I find also getting the players to buy into the concept that "failure is FUN and creative" helps free me up to think of failure cases for rolls. A table where everyone gets a KICK out of a food stuck in a door instead of only wanting to "win".
As a professional educator, this is one of the best D&D advice videos I've ever seen. You did an excellent job of showing the right choice at different skillsets and making each of those choices seem both clear and valid. Will absolutely be sharing with the 50ish middle schoolers in the club I run. Thanks for this!
I like it when players describe what they'd like to attempt and the DM tells them if a roll is needed and which roll it would be. It prevents frustration from rolling when success is impossible and also keeps players from just rolling all the time and taking the narrative flow out of the DM's hands.
In regards to DC setting, I think it also makes a lot of sense to scale DC per PC. For instance, the warlock grew up in a witch's hut, while the fighter was brought up in a military family. It would make more sense for the Warlock to identify a toxic potion ingredient than the fighter, even if they both have a -1 Int modifier and neither took Nature or Arcane.
@@TheElectrikCow that's fair, but in the moment, at the table, I usually think of it after the dice are rolled anyway. "You both rolled an 11? Well, YOU'D know because..."
Hm I don't know about that. It is hard enough as a GM to find the correct DC on the spot, having to think about all the random half-sentences in the players backstory, is imo too much to ask. If the players themselves get the idea, that something they did in the past could help, I could see myself lowering the DC by 1 or 2, but even then I am not sure if I like it. The character sheet encompasses the knowledge of the character and if nothing suggests that he is better in this task than the fighter, he probably slept through potion class.
@@gknucklez sure, I don't think it works for everyone, but as far as the second bit goes, I think the way I do it feels better for my players who put some thought into their backstory. Our characters are more than what they are on their sheets, you know? Little bonuses off-book reinforce that, I think.
@@gknucklez The character sheet *abstracts* the knowledge of the character, it summarizes and suggests it. But it doesn't encompass it. It's too small a document to encompass the knowledge of a full being. Where's the bit that talks about how they learned to tie their shoes, or eat without choking? Where's the part where they learned to sign their name with a flourish, or how to remember the colours that mix together to make others. I don't have painting proficiency but I know my primary colours and basic colour theory. Does the fighter know how to shave? I don't see it on his sheet. But telling the dwarf he doesn't know how to braid his beard or trim it would be silly, right? There's reams of stuff that does not fit on a sheet, and those things exist in an agreed upon space of abstraction between the players, the game, and the DM. The sheet isn't expected to represent every aspect of a character (Also, on the 5e sheet and most I've seen, there's a whole box for history. That is as relevant as anything else, yet far too small to be a comprehensive rundown of everything they've ever experienced.) nor is a player or DM expected to have every aspect of a character's history detailed. These are evolving things that come up according to context. If the Fighter was raised in a military camp, and the Warlock was raised in the woods. Why does the Fighter need to roll to know where the latrine is likely to be, and why would the Warlock possibly be able to beat them at it? Some things are just things we know, *not all advantages need to be the result of a dice roll.* If the Warlock was raised in a poisoner's hut, even if they never learned how to make poison, they'd probably know Blackwort was poisonous, cause they saw the labels or someone told them not to drink it. Fighter might never have seen it at all. (I don't know how to make Windex, and I have no particular expertise in it's use, but I know not to drink the stuff.)
As an experienced DM, I love to pause videos like this, and mull over the question - come up with an answer and brew some ideas. Then I unpause and see if I can get another answer and add a whole other set of solutions to my toolbox. It's a mental exercise *and* (ideally) advice all in one, so I think these are more useful to experienced DMs than inexperienced ones - because we already have our own ideas about how to go about things to add to and this lets us practice those skills. My solution, for those comment readers: Success, you smack the door in to the face of a mook (much like Matt's solution), knocking them prone. Fail, the door falls off its hinges and the kicker starts the combat prone!
I've been playing TTRPGs, more specifically DnD 3.5, for 13 years now. I've DM'd for 12 of those years. Yet, every time Matt pops off with a banger like this, I learn something new. Man, I love this game!
While I felt like I understood this concept before, as a still relatively new DM putting it in terms of the truth table is a great and I will definitely start thinking about necessity of future rolls in terms of the truth table.
I've not been DMing a long time - it was about 25 years between first playing as a teen and then picking it up again as an adult - but I now have the advantage of experience and wisdom and can handle the sessions well. However, it's always great watching one of Matt's videos because it allows me to actively think about the topic he is presenting, get his (another DM's) perspective on it, and it also renews my excitement about my next session and DMing, in general.
Matt: To answer your question about the Info button in the top right, no, you can't immediately add it to your "Watch Later" queue for later. On PC browsers, clicking the info button does pause the current video, change to a new tab and opens the linked video there, so you can always go back pretty easily. Additionally, info linked videos are among the first 10-15 results shown in the right-sidebar on PC browsers (and you can add it to Watch Later or any other playlist you want from hovering on it there). On the TH-cam app (at least, on Android devices), in full-screen clicking the info button prompt opens a sidebar (the current video is not paused) with a full link to that video. Clicking that entry then interrupts the current video entirely (does not put it in a queue) and if you want to return you have to manually go back to the original video (and it's not easy to do so). On the TH-cam app in portrait view, clicking the info prompt scrolls the bottom half of the app (the current video is not paused) to a section which lists that video as if it was a search result (where you can then click a small "dots" icon to add it to Watch Later or a playlist). Clicking that entry has the same result as in full-screen. I still think the info button feature is worth it, but it's much better to ALSO include links to those videos in the current video description, prefixed with a timestamp to the start of the current script paragraph (or to the start of that video chapter) and the title of the linked video, as this future-proofs the current video in case the info link feature ever goes away or changes. For example, you could include these two lines at the start of the current video description: 5:42 Many Fail States th-cam.com/video/l1zaNJrXi5Y/w-d-xo.html Including timestamps like this of every significant chapter in the video creates a "Chapter List", like seen in the video description for this compilation video: th-cam.com/video/_AXIOfilxi0/w-d-xo.html When a video description includes many timestamps in that format with titles attached, TH-cam (currently anyway) will segment your video into Chapters with titles shown in the bar at the bottom of the video viewer (next to the current timestamp). The viewer can then cycle through the chapters by either using CTRL+LEFT/RIGHT (on PCs) or by clicking on the current chapter title in the bottom bar. On the TH-cam app, tapping the chapter title in the bottom bar brings up the chapter list.
One of the favorite things my DM did was really reward good ideas. It helped cultivate a sense of immersion. The only dice rolling he did was on his end "to see if the enemy notices the parties actions" I asked him what the check was when I started my first DM campaign. He told me that just rolling the d20 (he had a heavy metal die) would spook us. If he thought there was a reasonable chance the enemy could notice us, then he'd actually role (i.e adult green dragon stretching before settling back down for a rest). What a great way of building tension
While experienced DMs might already know this, sometimes it's good to be reminded. It's also good to hear it through someone else's words as it give you a broader appreciation of the mechanics.
Having the mindset of “just having a good idea can lead to a mechanical advantage” really can free up the DM to make encounters challenging for the players… and I mean “the players” not just “the player’s characters.” To me this is the point of the game: if you just wanted to challenge the character, you don’t need the player do you?
Hey Matt! Coming to the comment section from 5:50 in the video 😂 I actually use that feature a lot. That i button drops down a list of all the linked videos throughout your video, so you can go back to the links at any time. Also yes, I finish watching the video all the way through, going back afterwards if a linked video intrigued me. Hope this helps!! 😁
There is a secondary reason you might want get your players to roll and some reasons you might want to not have your players roll even if it is important to pushing the story Rolling can signal that things are about to change in the game and can help bring checked out players back to the table, conversely when your players are really engaged in the story asking for a roll can break players out of their flow state. Asking for a roll can be tool for engagement. Also there is a style of role-playing that doesn't involve skill checks at all. It works best with a GM and one player, the idea is that it runs very much like telling a story and what makes it entertaining and worthwhile are the same things that make listening to somebody make up a story are entertaining. What makes it different to just making up a story is that the GM is taking the players input seriously and improvising off of that. A good story has triumphs and setbacks, there is tension and release, unexpected twists and turns. You can import some of this style of playing into your game, instead of asking for your players to make a roll, make the thing the most interesting or the thing the story needs at that point happen. This can improve how engaging your games are as a GM but there are a few things to keep in mind. Pay attention to the input from players and make sure it feels like they have an appropriate level of agency, enough that they feel they can influence outcomes not so much that there is no tension. Make sure you are balancing the good and bad outcomes with the players, one of the main reasons to have skill checks and involve dice is that nobody is going to blame an inanimate object for having favourite players but they will blame you the GM. Always narrate a success or failure appropriate to the skill level that the character is supposed to have, If you are going to have skilled character fail at something they are good at, make sure the reason makes sense for a skilled person.
Running Blades in the Dark really thought me this. Half the rolls result in mixed success, so players are often failing forward, but it also means that if you can't think of some dramatic fail state, you should just let them do it. Also the manual makes a point to tell you that the characters should still feel heroic, so you tend to let them do what they wanted to do when rolling, just adding an unforeseen consequence, extra tension or showing that the enemy was just that good that it didn't go as well as they hoped
Everyone should try Blades in the Dark at least once, just because it has such a different approach to the game. My personal favorite thing is the flashback mechanic and how they let you choose what equipment you brought during the mission, so your character ends up seeming intelligent and well-prepared as opposed to just having a backpack worth of useless junk you never used and having to come up with a ton of contingency plans that never come to fruitition before the adventure happens.
Blades in the Dark has also given me the idea of failing forward mixed with devil’s bargains, which could work slightly differently in this context. Take the door. If there isn’t something like a group of enemies on the other side of the door, you can use a bit of wobbly time to ask players what they want to happen. Like “you can tell that you have done all you can to this lock, and you won’t be able to crack it. You can choose to force it, which will break your pick, and also the lock (which is evidence that you were here, if that’s relevant). But it will maintain your stealth for now, and get you through the door. Or you can try something else.” Failing forward is something I struggle with constructing as a GM, but I really want to be good at it, and Blades is a great practice arena.
@@VeronicaWarlock agreed it can be a lot of fun, first time I run it for a group of friends, I tod the Face of the group:" you can get an extra die charming this guard to get through, but he's gonna fall madly in love with you" the idea of giving roleplaying consequences really made the game click for them
"time" was my favorite word in this video. we're here to roll dice so even if I don't want a player to fail, I will still have them roll. however, I will sometimes precedent a roll with "this won't determine if you succeed or fail... this will determine how long it takes you to do it". for instance, yes you still kick the door down but you rolled terribly and the enemies are not "surprised" because they heard your FIRST kick on the door a few seconds ago, now roll for regular initiative. (time is way more spicy when you give players clocks or reasons to hurry, which I enjoy doing.)
This is the reason I had a lot of trouble with Dungeon World. For Dungeon World, rolls can be "Yes", "Yes, but" or "no and". And I often struggled with coming up with "Yes, but" responses on the fly. "If you cannot think of things to happen in both positive and negative situations, then dont roll" is excellent advice.
I have been DMing for 39 years... Even if I do already know most of your advice, your videos are good reminders, thought-provoking, and a source of inspiration. So much so that there are many I watched more than once. Plus, you are very intertaining ! You are not the only DM advice channel I watch, but you are by far my favorite. Signed : You're Québec no. 1 fan.
This is a lesson that, I think, most DMs come to just through sheer raw experience. This fundamentally changes the roll of the dice to “the scene is progressing, one way or another.”
This is so simple but I can see it dramatically improving my games. Let players who are strong just do strong things, let the theif pick the lock if they aren't pressed for time. Thank you for this Matt! I'll be trying my best to implement it in my game tonight. :)
I like getting different takes on how to deal with things that arise during a game session. I been playing with the same group of people since the 80's so fresh perspectives is good to put in the old brain box.
Really solid advice. I think it's useful to remind GMs that you don't necessarily need to have both outcomes determined before you tell the player to roll. If you have a situation that you know is dramatic, and have at least one outcome in your mind but can't quite get there on outcome #2, sometimes you should just ask the player to roll anyway! Then, if by the time everything resolves and you still don't have a suitable outcome figured out, just let everyone know you need a minute. You're not in front of a camera with thousands of people hanging on your every word -- you're at your kitchen table with friends who just want to have a good time. Heck, it might even be good to call for a break right now and let the mind juices ferment. You're juggling multiple things at once at any given moment so asking for a minute once in awhile to really hammer home a flavourful outcome can't be that unreasonable, can it? Players do it all the time in combat, why should the GM be pressured into a higher standard? Games like Dungeon World and Blade in the Dark taught me that your hunch of the scene being suitably dramatic is a good enough reason for a roll and that you shouldn't burden yourself with the unrealistic expectation of having the perfect answer immediately all the time forever. Sometimes it's just better to lean back, take a deep breath, and let your players know you need a moment to think on the situation because that roll was just _that_ important.
The scenario with the player getting his foot/leg stuck in the door is exactly what happened when I DMed my 2nd or 3rd game ever. Half-Orc fighter rolled a nat 1 on his attempt. One of the funniest moments that I had DMed up to that point.
A rules of thumb I use are: • If it’s so easy the player can’t fail on a 1, don’t roll • If it’s so easy it may as well be DC 1 don’t roll • If it’s so hard the player can’t pass on a 20, don’t roll • If they HAVE to learn about, discover, or unlock a thing in order for the story to happen you might not want them to roll- what happens if they nat1 after all.
One of the things that I have realized reading other systems is the emphasis on horizontal progression. Rather than saying no to a player when they failed a roll, make something interesting happen instead that gives the players another problem to solve rather than making them sit there waiting until they have a better idea. A thief could fail a lockpick check, and instead of their pin breaking, the lock could still be unlocked but guards could be on their way and they heard someone fiddling the lock. The players are able to advance and the game doesn't go to a standstill.
I'm not let down, it's a good refresher on *why* we do things the way we do them. After a while, you just start running on instinct, and then you know when to call for a roll or not, but why can become one of those things a little difficult to put into words. Videos like this provide the words.
I hail from a simulationist school in that regard. The first question I ask is "is the outcome uncertain?" This alone filters out ridiculiusly easy and hard tasks. The next question is "does failure make a difference?" If failure doesn't make a difference, then I just assume that the player rolled a 20. If the check still fails, then the task is just beyond the capability of the character. In the "kicking down the door" situation, I strongly dislike that the outcome of failure is that the monsters heard the planning and thus surprised the player characters. The check tests if the character is strong enough to kick down the door. If the result is negative, this does not lead to the monsters having overheard the planning. While i generally agree that not every advantage has to be "earned" with a die roll, I do think that the described situation is a cool opportunity to let a characters great strength make a difference - or to punish the scrawny rogue for lacking that power. There doesn't need to be a "dramatic" consequence for failure - just a meaningful. If a character failed at kicking down the door, then the surprise is ruined. After that, if the characters continue to kick the door, they can succeed automatically because the result no longer makes a difference. I would describe failure somewhat like this: "your feet crashes into the door and almost throws it open. After this kick, it wouldn't need much to crash through it." The last thing I would like to add is: if a player announces that their character tries to kick down the door, the answer should not be to call for a roll. The answer should be that the door looks sturdy and might withstand a kick. This gives them the opportunity to approach the problem in a different way - maybe they want to improvise a ram. Maybe they want to open the door slightly instead and then dramatically kick open the rest of the way. It gives them an interesting choice and that is what the game is really about.
I like to do multiple DCs whenever possible, and split those into states such as "Failure" (negative consequences of the action taken), "Success, But..." (you might get the main result of the check, but not the desired result), "Success" (you get the desired result) and "Success, And..." (you get the desired result, and a little extra). With the door example, that would probably look like this: Success, And: With a mighty blow, the door comes clean off the hinges and hits Enemy A, roll 1d6 Bludgeoning Damage then everyone roll initiative, the monsters are surprised. Success: The door swings open with the force of your boot and slams into the wall, roll initiative, the monsters are surprised. Success, But: Boot slams against the door, there's a loud thud. After a brief moment, an enemy opens the door. Roll initiative, neither party is surprised. Failure: You take a run at the door, but before you make a connection, it swings open. Roll initiative, the party are surprised. The DC is set based on the type of door. A large wooden / iron door will be higher than a small, standard door. If it's something that would be a DC 12 normally, then the variable DCs are 22 (Success, And)
Blades in the Dark completely changed how I think about rolling. Basically, in blades: your character wants soemthing > there is an obstacle > you decide how to tackle the obsctacle > you roll If there was no obstacle, or it is trivial (for example, picking a simple lock is trivial most of the time), there is no roll. The obstacle can be guards, a wall blocking your way, the distrust of an NPC you want as an ally, the suspicion agianst you, just anything You can get through an entire fight with one roll. None of this 1 hour of rolling attacks and damage. On a roll, you can get a success, partial success and failure. Partial success lets you get what you want, but there is a complication, harm, or any other bad situation. Can be a wound (you defeat the guard but he also hits you), or something that changes the situation (you defeat the guard, but with his last breath he calls for help). Failures mean you fail, and you get a bad complication. Enemies don't get rolls. All the harm you get is from your failures or partial successes. There is no DC, but the DM can decide your success will only have "limited effect" if you are trying something too difficult.
I also like to think of this in almost the opposite way. Depending on the roll, how well they succeed or how hard they fail inspires what happens, just like in Matt's examples. Feels good if you're in the flow and rolling with it!
Actually, as an experienced DM, I like it when you sort of state something I already know. In a way, it's as if you help me voice to myself why I do this or that in a game, and, quite frankly, sometimes it makes me realise how important (or uselss) that little thing is for players. So thanks even if I already know and apply this or that!
I have the same thought about combat rolls. Why roll if the success or failure of "an attack" is not something dramatic? Subtracting 7 or 17 hit points from a sack of 82 hit points is not dramatic. A thought for doing away with hit points: advances & setbacks, advantages & disadvantage (not to be confused with the 5e mechanic). A successful combat roll might mean your opponent is now off-balance, or disarmed, momentarily confused or distracted, fell for a feint leaving them open. These make your opponents next action more difficult and/or your next action easier -- but you have to do something that takes advantage of the situation. Likewise failure on combat rolls give you setbacks: you become unbalanced, disarmed, guard down leaving you open. The degree of success or failure can determine the degree of advance or setback. Extreme success might be an instant kill, for example. In general the killing or disabling blow will occur with a high success when your net advantage (opponent's disadvantage) is high and you roll high on an action that could kill. No more hit points. No more of this: "I attack", "roll to hit", "17", "that hits, roll damage", "eh... 3... plus 4... 7!", "the goblin takes 7 points of damage. Ok who's turn is next?". Instead, this: Rogue: "I try to duck & roll under the dragon's belly to slice it open... argh 4!", _GM: "Well, you miss-time it as the dragon shifts its footing and roll right into its foreleg. You find yourself on your back, lying across two of its foreclaws(which currently dig into the ground beneath you), and you are looking straight up into one wide gleaming eye of the dragon who, up until now, had taken no notice of you."_ Ranger(who has been lining up a shot): "I think from where I am, that eye makes a great target. I loose my arrow straight at the dragon's eye! Even if I miss, maybe I distract it from the Rogue: "...14. Does that hit?!". _GM: "Well, your arrow glances off the bony ridge above the dragon's eye, losing most of its force, but it does slightly scratch its cornea. The dragon winces, rears up, and sends the rogue flying with a backhanded toss... 20. Wow. Rogue, you go flying 40' back all the way to those columns near the entrance. Roll dex to see if you avoid cracking your head on that pillar. Meanwhile, the dragon turns to you [ranger] and you have its full attention. It seems to be inhaling deeply..."_ Rogue: 19! _GM: "You manage a mid-air spin and land crouched on your feet. What do you want to do?"_ Rogue: "It's about to breath fire. I duck behind the column and then get lost in the shadows after that fire-hose stops. ...13." GM: "The dragon is paying you no mind, and you are now deep in the shadows, we'll come back to you in a moment." Ranger: "I know a blast is coming, I start running perpendicular to the line of fire, while rapid firing arrows at its face more for distraction than effect... ...with bonuses 22" _GM: "Even as the dragon starts breathing a jet of flame, tracking you as you run, you send a flurry of arrows into its face, causing it to wince & squint & throwing its aim off, making it easier for you to dodge the jet of flame about to sweep over you. How do you avoid the flame?"_ Ranger: "Hmm... sweeping over me? Just as the jet of flame is about to sweep over me I hit the deck, flat, and after it sweep over (hopefull above) me, I'll roll behind that statue for additional cover." _GM: "roll acrobatics... hmmm 14? That's actually enough given the success of your distracting shots. You flatten to the ground and are only singed by the flames, with a loose flap of your cloak catching fire. Then you roll and get behind the statue giving you cover and the jet of flame sweeps back. When the flames stop, you see the dragon stagger slightly and claw at its nose. With that 22, one of your distracting shots went up it nose! You can see half the shaft still sticking out. The dragon seems rather distracted with trying to remove it. So, now, both of you, what do you want to do?"_
In general, I can appreciate the way Matt views this issue, but the philosophy of only ever having rolls produce dramatic outcomes can often lead to situations where actions do not necessarily have logical consequences, such as one character failing a strength check meaning the whole party was talking too loudly while planning to kick the door down, which doesn't really follow as a natural consequence, which hurts verisimilitude as well as the player's ability to feel like they have a logical effect on the game world
This is excellent advice for more than one reason. As a DM I like calling for rolls because it seems to add to the reality of the universe. It is still bad to mechanically roll all of the time, so the desire to make every roll interesting is a great motivator and source of inspiration. I kid you not I just DMd a session with this EXACT example that illustrates how that motivation adds so much to the game: My players had decided to kick down a door because they heard a group of hobgoblins on the other side, and that's all that was the combat: defeat the hobgoblins. If any escape they will alert the big bad and make the final combat more difficult by bolstering the ranks. Cookie cutter D&D combat. And my initial decision was cookie cutter as well: Succeed the roll and you get it in one kick for surprise, Fail and it takes two kicks, ruining surprise. They succeeded but I thought adding surprise wasn't interesting enough, and that gave me a burst of inspiration which morphed the entire scene, and probably the campaign. They burst in to see the hobgoblins all prone, covering their ears with their backs to a table covered in alchemical reagents with a big glass jug filled with violent yellow fluid. My players rightly guessed that they were making explosive and mistook the source of the sudden BANG, and completed the combat and final combat without accidentally/on-purpose detonating the explosive jug. Now I have a thread to pull to better flesh out the Big Bads plan and motivation and even better, my players are now in possession of a jug of potent explosive. It will certainly shatter a small piece of my world at some point and I have NO IDEA how or to what effect. It's gonna be a good campaign, and all the better because I wasn't satisfied with boring outcomes to rolls.
I'm a long-time GM, and I *love* this advice! I was entirely in the initial group you described, and I'm between DMs 1 and 2. I wanna be the 3rd! Thank you for helping me get there
"If your PCs have weirdly higher or lower bonuses than the rules expect, you can sort of normalize things by adjusting what medium difficulty is." Not sure exactly what "Weirdly" means here but as a player I'd rather have consistency. If I invest into having an amazing lockpicking proficiency only to have every subsequent lock become inexplicable harder, that feels bad. I invested in picking locks so that I could pick locks reliably.
I have been GMing for decades and these videos still provide me with ideas, affirmation of ideas I have been using, and an opportunity to examine or re-examine ideas I have not been using. It is not exactly a dialogue, but I often find myself replying vocally, nodding my head, etc... Perhaps I am mad but these videos are good for me as well. Fun Check: I think the foot through door is hilarious, and can be also be tense (thinking of a scene in the Dirty Dozen when one character's foot goes through the roof/ceiling), but not every player enjoys a bit of slapstick or mild humiliation. Just remember to check in with your players about what kind of funny they prefer.
5:50 Yeah I don't know about the TH-cam corner link thing. I watch these on my phone and never use them. There's times I would maybe at the end of a video, but it's a pain to go back and find the link unless it's in the description. Edit: actually on mobile you can get a list of linked videos if you tap on the gear icon and "more from". It's a little obscured but more convenient than scrolling back through the video to find the link
I especially loved your shout out for experienced dms at the end. I religiously consumed everything by bloggers and TH-camrs for DnD and I noticed over the past couple of months that their advice starts to loose their magic. I have outgrown the basic advice and now I only need specific advice for very specific problems. I thought for a month that I just wasn't into the hobby as much anymore but I rlnow recognize that through the wonderful advice from you and other creators I have grown so much that I am at or just slightly below the level of yall. This makes me really grateful and I wanted to thank you for your work and for making all dms that watch you better
6:00 - jeez I never thought of that. I've never clicked one of those cards, and at least on mobile, it pops open a little preview window, which lets me wait ton click through it until I'm done on this one, which isn't quite the same but isn't useless either. Yeah, I often feel like Very Online folks whose first exposure is streamed games fall into this trap pretty readily, because Actual Plays are also shows and so sometimes die rolls are opportunities for touchstone moments. For example, I think Mercer calls for rolls too often as determinants of outcomes. By contrast, Brennan Lee Mulligan overuses them for exposition but handwaves some things that might have a dramatic outcome in favor of pace. Both make sense for their games, in a context where the game is not just for the people at the table but also a show. I generally think if there isn't a compelling result for failure, then it's either no roll or roll with advantage so we can determine the degree of awesomeness, because sometimes a player wants to see their +13 To Athletics turn a 16 into a 29, and who am I to say no.
Hey Matt, just wanted to provide my take on your comments on long terms DMs who know all this. Just wanted to say that I've been Running the Game for about 15 years now. Long time DM. This advice is actually super helpful. A great refersher and reminder for me to consider when I ask for rolls. A well timed roll can make or break drama. So even though I did already know all this, still a super useful reminder. Thanks as always!
🤣🤣 I'm a mainly Sci-fi modeller who has taken up mini painting for a bit variety, colour and as a palate cleanser. As a noob your comment about being okay with sucking at it for quite a long time really hit me - so true!
This is why I like a yes and, no but mechanic. One thing I do is if you beat by 5 or more you get a yes and even more cool stuff. Hit the target and you get a simple yes. Miss by one you get a no but something ok for you happens as well. Miss by more than 5 and you get a no and also this really sucks. So No and would be your failed to kick open the door dramatically and the monsters suprise you. No but might look like no drama, but no monster surprise. Yes gets you the drama opening and a cool scene. The big roll gets you a surprise round. Thanks for brining this up in a video.
This is excellent advice. Personally, I think this might be one of the most useful tips for a new DM/GM. And it is one I have not read anywhere since 84 when I started GMing.
I love this! I was literally running a game a few weeks ago where my players tried kicking down a door and they got their foot caught in it. This ended up slowing them down in their pursuit of a villain and it resulted in a new recurring bad guy. I love any advice that encourages us to think dramatically with pro/con results for player rolls.
I've DMed in the past and while I love the idea conceptually, there was always something awkward I felt I was missing, and I feel this video has exactly what I needed
I agree with everything here except setting DC on a curve. If the GM raises the DC because you're good at the skill, what's the point in investing in that skill? I once played at a Pathfinder Society event and had a character with a +8 survival. The GM asked for survival checks to cross a swamp, and each roll got slightly harder than the last. We weren't under a time pressure, so I took 10 on each check. I passed the first three checks, but I could tell the GM was getting upset that I wasn't picking up the die. He wanted me to fail. I decided to roll the last check and succeeded. After the roll, I asked the GM point blank: if I had taken 10 again, would you have failed me no matter what the DC was? He said yes, and it soured me on society so hard I've never gone back.
As a longtime DM and a martial artist, I look at the last statement before the sales pitch through a different lens than a lot of people. "Longtime DMs may be let down because...the more experience you have, the more specific your advice needs to be." There is no such thing as knowing the basics too well. There is no such thing as reviewing the basics too much. In many martial arts, a black belt means that you have mastered the basics, but still have a lot to learn, which is why there are various levels of black belt. You can be a 6th degree black belt and still have a lifetime of learning ahead of you, and the same is true of storytelling.
I’d also say that just allowing a success instead of requiring a roll can occasionally help reinforce a players characterization of there character. If a player asks something that might be a history check and their characters backstory has them as a relevant expert in history, just say “you’d be aware of this:…” or if a characters core concept revolves around being an investigator, sometimes just respond with “you notice ” and then maybe ask for a roll if they want to discern more. While it’s true that the dice can help tell a story I often find it can feel crappy if a player built a whole character around certain skills and yet constantly fail to utilize them purely due to bad rolls. Pure rng can be funny if thats your bag, but it can also get in the way of a story your collaboratively crafting sometimes.
As an experienced DM I find your videos useful because a) it gives me a chance to reflect on my own practice and b) sometimes it's good for some re-enforcement if I've recently had a situation that I wonder whether I should have done things differently. I don't think we're ever so experienced that some advice/discussion isn't worth thinking about
Matt- this is a fantastic video. The fusion of the why and the how has always been a component of your classic running the game videos. Adding this game crunch to narrative structure and dramatic tension? *chef's kiss
Thanks for the video! I thought this was very succinct and put into words something that's been stuck in my head for a while. I've been an on-again off-again DM for a few years, and found this advice on when to ask for rolls really helpful
"Just having good ideas is a good enough reason to earn a mechanical advantage." YES! One of the things I do in my games that two of my DMs have adopted into theirs is offering DC reductions, advantage, bonuses to checks, etc. if they can be creative in how they do things. Sometimes what they describe is so awesome I just let it happen their way. There was a plot-device disease ravaging a city. One of the players was infected with it. The party was like level 6 and needed to cure it but according to my DM fiat they needed stronger. There were temples around that had clerics that could perform medicinal rituals to cure the disease, but they felt pressed for time and didn't want to expose themselves further at that moment. I told them based on a solid medicine check that if you just cast Lesser Restoration, you'll have a small chance of success. However, if you can come up with a creative way in which you attempt to cure it, I'll adjust things to make it easier. They came up with an elaborate ritual using holy water, lesser restoration, and basically cleaning the blood using the holy water (like plasmapheresis DND style). They added a couple of other Lesser Restorations and a Lay on Hands to bolster it further. I did a fun description of the ritual and just said you successfully cure the disease. Even for minor things. Paladin has Divine Sense, wants to try to sense if there are are fiends, undead, or whatever on the island they were marooned on. I told him it's 60 ft. to just use it normally, but give me a reason to extend the range and I'll do it. He did a small ritual using some mundane items and meditated during a short rest. Good stuff. He got to detect almost the entire island from his position. If you expend time, resources, and creative juice, you should get added benefits for doing so. And DMs should be looking for reasons to say yes, not to say no.
I think it's also worth mentioning (because this addresses a fallacy I often fall subject to) that it's okay, possibly even good, to blend practices. In this case, for instance, it's probably good to reach for, "only roll when equally dramatic," but to sometimes ask for a roll when the outcome is uncertain but you can't think of a dramatic failure right away. Maybe you come up with something, maybe you don't have to, or maybe you don't, but I think it can help reinforce the verisimilitude of the world, and make dice rolls a little less scary. Which is good, because players can be terribly risk averse sometimes.
Yeah. You don't want every dice roll to be summoning Godzilla or it means that the players will stop asking to do things in case they go wrong. In the example given in the video, it should be possible for the players to determine that their foot might go through the door if they kick it in some way. Otherwise with some tables it's just going to seem like the DM is punishing the player for a failed roll (when not getting surprise is already a punishment).
Hahaha the monster opens the door and you tumble in or your leg gets stuck. You speak and gold comes out. My pcs/friends will get some seriously needed laughter from you Mr. Matthew. Thank you!!!
Love the video! Want to add if I may, i also find making players roll for things they might know, although failure doesn't add anything, you can make it do so: giving false information or even slightly off information, give the players a bit of knowledge then something another player knows is wrong. Lastly, a classic in my game "you remember your mentor trying to teach you about this, but your young mind was bored, and didn't pay attention." Then they can go to their mentor, or give them a name of a book they studied so they may hunt it down. Progression with failure, as you said!
Dude, even when I think “I know all about this topic.” A little voice says, “There’s still hidden nuggets. Listen.” And sure enough, the four different door kicking outcomes are pure gold I’d never thought of. You’re the goat!
Excellent advice as always. And maybe not all experienced DM's have everything figured out, you know. This is what Aabria Iyengar said in E5 of EXU, in response to Anjali Bhimani's moment of indecision. ANJALI: I am debating whether I have to relieve him of said vestige at any given point for his own safety. Can I make a roll to make that decision? AABRIA: Now, rolls are like-- Meta-conversation, rolls are where a decision and the universe may disagree on a course of action.... We don't disagree because you haven't made a choice. So, do what you think you need to do.
I like to do a ‘and/but’ with die roles. If a player roles and succeeds but only just the result is a ‘yes, but’ - they get what they want but with an unintended small consequence. If they succeed by a lot they get an unintended benefit. The same for failures. It forces me to think creatively and not just give a green light or red light.
I think for older DMs there can still be benefit in these videos. Like, I in my tenure might have identified the same quandary and come up with the solution “I don’t need to make them roll for everything. I can just have them roll for some stuff,” and I might have some internal ideas of what that stuff is, but it’s very likely that I’ve never put that idea into specific words or even thought to try to do so, and having it clearly stated here might provide some more clear and satisfying parameters for making that choice.
I know of two ways to make failing to force a door open dramatic. This will likely cause players to develop an unnatural fear of doors. A) After a minute or two the door creeks open. The bad guys inside the room conceal themselves or escape the room. Just before doing so they set a trap inside of the room. B) One of the bad guy(s) approaches the players from the direction they came from. The bad guy serves as a distraction for the players. Meanwhile, the other bad guys inside of the room open the door. Blocking the players escape.
A great option for DMs that want to reward a good idea from a character that should be able to do it is to say that *they* can definitely do that - because their [relevant skill] is so high that they wouldn't fail even on a 1. It really makes the player feel like they made good choices and that their character is achieving their role fantasy.
I feel like I've already seen this video before. I definitely remember hearing the bit about failing to kick the door down and the monsters open the door and surprise the players.
I agree with this principle, especially from a DM perspective, but sometimes players love rolling.They want to roll for all sorts of silly things, one of my favorite moments of comedic pvp (the only kind our table allows) was when one player completely randomly said "I want to roll to hide a fish in the fighters pillow" and the session descended into chaos for like an hour as the prank war was on. It was great.
I did something like the example here recently in my pathfinder campaign, where a large sized PC wanted to smash through a wall instead of going through a normal sized door. I had the rubble crush the enemy standing on the other side, with a reflex save to not be pinned under it. It also created two squares of difficult terrain, though that was more of a hindrance to the PCs in this situation. The thing I didn't do was think of an interesting failure result. If I applied that part of this video to it, I probably would have had the success be burying the enemy in rubble and failure being creating difficult terrain.
3.5 set simple DCs at 5 and 10 because it also had the mechanic of "taking 10," which is to say "If you are not threatened or otherwise in distress, you can take a 10 in lieu of rolling." Which means a DC 10 difficulty is "If someone is not literally holding a sword in your face, you succeed, even if you don't have any training!"
![SAFEPLANET - ดาวเคราะห์ [ THE PLANET ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4X1XL3I_k3c/mqdefault.jpg)
"You Don't need to earn every advantage through die rolls."
That right there might be some of the best game mastering advice ever.
I like this
It's a true statement. But... how many GMs don't already know this? Are there really GMs that are so disconnected from any sense of narrative positioning that they don't think choice can create advantage?
@@PanicSatanic Taken as a blanket statement like that, it seems obvious, but even though DMs may agree with it at face value they may still have players rolling far more often than not.
the following line feels also quite important to
"Having a good idea can be enough to earn a minor advantage..."
the decisions of the party are rewarded and rolls are made with Risk/reward factors that enhance the game.
@@PanicSatanic Tons of GMs don't already know this. Remember, he doesn't just say "advantage", he says "*an* advantage". Not just "good idea, roll with advantage", but "good idea, here's how you change the circumstances of the encounter".
The players need to have a basic understanding of the outcomes of success and failure, but *within* that understanding ("if we succeed, we open the door") you can have a LOT of fun surprising them with dope results.
I honestly love this advice, and was something I didn't really think about before. Going to try it out. :)
Thank you internet dad.
In response to video cards: if the video seems interesting, I tend to open it in a new tab, and will decide when the current video is done whether I will watch it then or add to watch later.
I think the only thing that annoys me about this topic - it popped up on the 5e facebook group a bit back - is DMs asking for rolls for impossible tasks. Like, if the only outcome of a task is a failure either the roll just determines grades of failure or there is no point in the roll. But either way, you should be communicating that in some way to your players.
Check out the Dungeon Coach video regarding his take on Success vs. Failure... he has a Neutral range that neither helps nor hinders the party, which suggests to me that dramatic tension can be ratcheted in a way that isn't so yes/no.
A term I think is very useful is "shoelacing". It refers to the players filling in the question, "What do you do?" with the most mundane, unexciting action to take in that moment, and if you combine that with a system that says all actions are somehow tied to dice rolls, you get people asking if they succeed in putting on their shoes.
This and also they never think Out of their Charakter Sheets. In DnD ITS relatively fine, but in Games with lots of abilities newbies tend to use them like Options in an adventure-game. I Just had it some weeks ago. The Party wanted to Pass a Gate with to guards and the new Player started scanning His Charakter Sheet in search "what he could do" since you solve Problems with die rolling and this are the Thing you Roll on. Completely missing the Point, that the fun of a ttrpg ist, that He could solve it in every way imaginable.
FOOTWEAR OR DIE!!!!!
That's funny, I have always described my criticism of rolling for mundane tasks as "asking to roll to put your shoes on." Another metric I use is if I or the player can do it easily in real life, their hero character probably doesn't need to roll to do it.
When we used to play Iron Crown we used to joke that there were rules and rolls for tying your shoelaces :). I swear that someone had a critical failure on it, became unbalanced and broke their ankle :lol:
At a game of Masks at a con, I was asked to roll to Unleash My Powers to simply go to the crime scene we had been summoned to in the opening narration. I failed. The GM then just had me roll again. Why?
Another good piece of advice I heard, I think from Johnny Chiodini, is "Don't make your players roll for something you don't want them to fail." I feel like this can take a little pressure off the DM and just let the players do cool stuff sometimes, even when it's planned for.
It should really be that you aren't okay with them failing. If I want them to fail, then why would I roll dice? They just fail at that point.
Johnny's oxventure videos are a masterclass in understanding what rules to keep and what rules to eschew for the sake of narrative and fun. their combat are unlike any other actual play I've seen cause they just let their players do stuff and be cool for a bit, and then the next character gets to do stuff and be cool. it's low stakes and the oxventurers steamroll almost every co bat encounter but oxventure is a low stakes campaign by desihn (mechanically at least) so it works
@@nines3048Co bat encounter: when someone shows up in their homemade Batman-costume and insists on helping, even though they’re completely incompetent, and always gets in the way. Roll Bluff to give them non-hazardous busywork elsewhere.
I would hate playing with a DM that decided what he wanted the outcome to be would determine whether or not a roll is required. Railroading sucks and it’s no fun for anyone.
@@Shannovian I think the quote is actually something like “that you’re not prepared for them to fail.” Basically, if you absolutely need a success to progress the story, arrange it so that it makes sense they don’t need to roll for it, and then don’t make them roll.
I love this advice. I think it helps addess the problem of "My character is the greatest at X in the world, but I rolled a 1 so I failed"
I like the notion of "the bonus is the PC's competence; a low die roll is the universe being a dick."
@@kevinbaird6705 good ol universe
I’ve started changing my mindset to where sometimes a low roll on the dice isn’t reflective of a character’s ineptitude, but rather a consequence of circumstance or an opposed character’s skill stopping them.
Examples:
You rolled a 1 on your Nature check - you don’t fail because all of a sudden you don’t know how to follow tracks after spending your whole life in the woods, but rather a recent rain has muddied the tracks so much you aren’t able to discern details.
A 1 on that Persuasion roll doesn’t mean your character is suddenly a babbling idiot, but rather the shopkeeper/merchant just isn’t interested in buying your magic sword because they specialize in art and pottery.
You’re in combat and you rolled a Nat 1? Your Fighter doesn’t suddenly forget how to use their spear properly and accidentally stabs themself in the foot - instead the cultist pulled a hidden dagger out at the last moment and you had to swing wide in order to not get hit yourself etc etc
@@elcapitanofthemtn Yeah, the dice isn't a representation of a person vacillating between competence and ineptitude (or not just that). It's a representation of chaos and luck. People who are better skilled, are better at dealing with chaos/problems that come up, they have the ability to compensate for it. A low roll means things were harder than they seemed, and your skills couldn't make up for it.
It's kind of how a missed attack because of AC isn't a miss, it's the armour doing it's job, or the enemy dodging. The numbers are an abstraction of the events, not a rating of them. When you succeed, you've managed to corral chance enough by tipping the scale through individual skill. I mean it can also be individual incompetence, there are plenty of days I am terrible at things I know I'm good at. But it shouldn't always, or even often be.
Is a critical fail on a skill check an actual thing??
Also, there's the Immersionist/OSR thing of "describe your character's interactions with the world, and if logically you discover something or cause an effect in the course of that, it occurs with no roll necessary." So much more fun than perception/investigation checks to find treasure or a secret door!
Yeah. Something the OSR has really added to my "Advice to give new GM's" is: Try running a few sessions with zero dice rolls. Just let the players describe their actions and as the GM decide what the results are. For everything. In some cases you are going to make bad calls. In some cases you are going to make REALLY bad calls. Sometimes you may look at a situation and think "The only way this resolves is with the character's death" and you will have to just make that decision and live with it.
And at the end of that experience you'll have gained confidence with your ability to make decisions, and also gained valuable experience in deciding when a roll is necessary. All the times where you stopped and said "im making this call, but it doesn't feel quite right" Those are the times where you leave it to the dice.
@GravyBoat FANTASTICALLY put. I wish I could make this the header comment instead
This is my approach these days, now I go nuts whenever someone says 'roll Perception' when I ask what's inside the cabinet.
@@davidhorrocks5170 As my groups forever dm, when I've had a few games as a player recently, I've realised some things similar to this irk me, then I've also realised as a dm I do similarly annoying things. It's crazy how much a different perspective can help. Just like your comment, it's made me realise again I probably do similar things.
I think sometimes as a DM you just have a lot on your plate, and asking for a roll can give me a few more seconds to think. Really I need to just be okay with taking a few moments to think of a more interesting and satisfying outcome. Thanks for the realisation!
Wholeheartedly disagree. Now its a game about playerskill, not character skill. Best make the barbarian smash doors irl and the wizard cast spells too.
I consider myself a longtime DM, though not by some standards. I’ve been DMing for about 9 years now. But I CONSTANTLY find your videos useful as reference point. This video I can already tell will be incredibly useful to me.
There are many aspects of my DMing that I consider subpar. Im constantly looking to improve. But I can’t always tell what needs improving, and my players can’t always articulate it either.
This video introduces a new step for me, and easy one to remember and practice- when I a player wants to do something, try to think of dramatic outcomes for any roll of the dice. Simple, useful, and has the potential to change my game.
Agreed. I’ve been dming for many years, & this is gold. I had not often thought about what could happen if they fail, (or sometimes even if they succeed). I think I’ve been doing it as a stall tactic: ‘I don’t know, so maybe the dice itself will inspire me.’
But, that has led to some bland moments &, especially when it’s kept happening, an encounter that drags out hard.
I could’ve just started with, “You kick the door down!” & gotten onto the next thing where I do have something cool in mind!
Even if you knew the entire concept of the video something as simple as "putting your foot through the door" is still a great example to borrow.
Love that, and good luck to you. I have put a bit of thought into this concept before and two things we have started saying at my table have really elevated the game experience. "Rule of cool, let it happen" and "Flavor is free. How do you want it to look?". I've been DMing for a long time and have recently found myself playing with a lot of new players. Allowing them to do the narratively cool thing and have their moments has led to better party interaction.
Well, that might actually be a misunderstanding of the point of this video. I think Matt is not suggesting that you turn every activity into something dramatic. If you try to make every action a possible surprise, your players will get burned out quickly. There really should be a reason in the narrative, some inherent drama or tension present. If not, just turning the mundane into something more will simply overwhelm and possibly frighten your players. They'll think twice before asking for something that might require a roll.
Nah but nine years is a long time for you. I'm guessing that's longer than your players have haha.
DM from the 70's being reborn. Love the dramatic storytelling aspect. You are really good at explaining complex ideas. I'm stealing this one. Make obstacle challenges meaningful and creative, foot kicked a hole in the door, inspired me. What broke my train of thought is when you said, don't even make them roll, make them tell you how they did it! Brilliant! Thank you.
I ran a fighter a while back who was always kicking doors in, often with reckless abandon. It was his thing
If I failed a roll on a kick and got my character’s foot stuck in the door, I would have been ECSTATIC! Nothing brings me more joy in combat than when it’s dictated by the environment.
This description of interesting narrative failures cleaves pretty close to an idea I picked up from the system Blades In the Dark, which is “success at cost”. Sometimes a failed roll doesn’t mean that the player outright failed at what they were trying to do, but rather that they succeeded, but now there’s some other complication they now have to deal with - like kicking open the door but now your foot is stuck in it.
My favorite houserule is to give players auto-success on trivial tasks if they have the proper proficiency. I like to use this specifically when I need drop exposition about a new locale or concept the players are hearing about; if one of the players has proficiency in the appropriate knowledge skill (Arcana, History, Religion, etc), I'll just _give_ them the lore drop. On one hand, it solves the problem of players missing out on lore just because they rolled low, and on the other it makes players feel rewarded that they invested in a particular knowledge skill. It also allows me to pick and choose _when_ to lore drop and about which topics, that way I'm not just spewing lore nonstop at my players.
Yeah Lore checks are a funny thing. Because I know a ton of stuff, I don't have to try to know it, if the context emerges, I think about it, possibly even if I don't want to. But there are things I've forgotten, or literally have to piece together because I know bits and pieces of it, or just haven't thought about it in the proper context. When it comes to simple recall, I look at a PC's experiences, training profs, and background, I usually just don't ask and simply tell them the basic info. When it comes to something that they might not know, but there's a chance they heard about it, because it's obscure or weird, and they could know it wrong, I ask for a roll. I've almost always decided they know something, but it's how well that we might roll on. If I'm asking for, or granting a roll, you'll always get *some* information. As far as I'm concerned, you knowing *something* is what the check represents.
The problem is the players are really addicted to rolling that icosahedron, even if they end of tripping and falling off the horse.
Also when I click on the thingy up in the top right corner, it pauses this video, and opens a new tab with the new video. Kinda odd that it does not have a little "plus" icon button that just lets me add it to my watch later que.
I often use skill checks to determine how quickly the players figure it out, not necessarily *if* they succeed. It is very useful to avoid situations where the story levers might otherwise be hidden. A result under the DC just means it takes longer, more effort, or expends additional resources without blocking story progress.
This is an instant classic Matt Colville video. The advice, tone and presentation are perfect, and it's something you can use right away in your game tonight. I might go so far to say this video is quintessential Matthew Colville. It is a joy to watch someone do something so well!
Too true! Love this series to the moon & back!
Even as an experienced DM, its always nice to have a video for a reminder and posterity ;)
Even an experienced DM is still learning new techniques and tactics. I've been running for near on 20 years and I still watch videos like this to help improve and refine the craft.
When it comes to basic fundamentals like this, I appreciate it as a seasoned DM. It makes me reflect on how I have been running the game and I usually feel like I have more fine-tuning to be doing. I think I can work on having die rolls produce tension, and just letting my players succeed when it doesn't (and the task isn't too difficult).
As someone who plays a lot of adventure games, having a concrete state of success helps move the story forward and I know for a fact I feel less frustrated when I know what the outcome of my actions are.
This fits really well with "Say yes, or roll dice".
This *is* Say Yes or Roll the Dice.
There's a RTG video called "No," btw
@@MrSilvUr Not explicitly. Yes, they are similar admonitions, and the venn diagram overlaps a lot, but "only roll when pass/fail both add drama" and "say yes or roll dice" are not the same thing.
I would actually argue that "only roll when pass/fail both add drama" is one of many decision making tools for doing "say yes or roll dice".
@@crimsonhawk52 That's a good one too. Was there a specific part you wanted to reference?
@pixledriven could you describe some of the places where Roll the Dice or Say Yes doesn't overlap?
That part about more advanced DMs needing more specific advise in on point.
A year ago I would ask people about combat balance and “hey, maybe have _20_ CR 1/2 enemies is wayyy too difficult cause of action economy alone” and I’d be like “wow I never knew!”
Now I’m trying to balance an encounter to be potentially deadly- like, fully comfortable with 1-2 PC deaths- and it really comes down to “you know your party better than we do.”
There’s probably no one else in the world who’s running Curse of Strahd, only has about a year and a half of experience, running for a table of 5 Forever DM’s, with 6 PC’s of their specific subclasses, 2 specific allies, and my specific changes to the enemy NPCs.
So I kinda have to just go for what I feel will work
I like to give my players both potential outcomes beforehand and let them decide if they still want to roll. They may decide it isn't worth the risk, but they almost always choose to roll, anyway. Since they know the risk beforehand, I can be a lot more confident with really increasing the stakes, which makes for some fun and exciting moments and incredible tension at the table. It can make successes way more fun because the player knows what they just narrowly avoided and just how bad it could have been for their character. I got this idea from another DM, and I loved how it changed a simple skill check into such a dramatic and exciting moment that had the whole party cheering when the player succeeded, and resulted in some pretty unforgettable moments.
lukewarm take: There's something to be said about indulging players with softball checks. How many times has a DM gone to reddit saying 'how do I make skill checks challenging for the rogue if they're roll +10 on expertise skills?' But the thing is, that player invested multiple steps into making their character good at those particular set of skills. Let them have that fantasy of high competence instead of deciding that all the doors in the kingdom have magically gotten stronger, in the same way a wizard should be finding cool new spells and a fighter should be finding a cool magic weapon.
also, re: mount video: Fantastic idea, would love to hear tips less about the individual mounts and more about how to make mounts work in general (how to keep a nominal amount of balance, how to make them relevant, and how to make them living beings and not walking motorcycles that you park outside of the dungeon).
5:50 Felt like answering this: On a desktop, I can at least just click the video with M3 (my mouse wheel) and open it in a new tab for later. But yeah, what TH-cam expects is an enigma for the sages.
I feel we've heard this many times during live streams - but it's still useful to repeat this.
Since shifting to a more OSR gm style this has been a constant thing I deal with, deciding when rolls are required and making them matter when they happen.
I've always felt like the OSR mindset is that if you're rolling, you probably screwed up somehow. Your chances of success are SO low early on it's like you want to treat everything as a last-resort "saving throw" if players don't come up with something that's bound to work.
@@colbyboucher6391 I'm probably going to run Old School Essentials at some point and you know I'm going to handle searching room and resolving traps narratively where possible
@@lizzycorvus5109 I've always liked tying traps into TheAngryGM's "tension dice" concept (even if The AngryGM is kind of insufferable).
Basically, spending time in dungeons = more encounters. By default I assume the party is moving slowly and carefully, and always checking for traps. So I let them just see that there's a trap and figure out how to disarm it.
If they choose to move less carefully to save time... that's when they might stumble into something.
One thing I would like to add here if noone else has which i deal with in my games as a DM. Sometimes the players ask for a roll to do a check even if I had no intention of failing them for the check or if I deemed already that the task was impossible. I find that rather than saying "You dont need to roll" my players have found it enjoyable too roll and then I tell them what it achieved. For example, if a player decides to search for a clue in a temple room even when there is literally nothing there for them to find and asks for a roll. Rather than say there is nothing there you can allow them to find a piece of lore or history about the place that is not necesarrly benefical to them at the moment but gives greater insight into something down the line. If they fail you can have them trip on a rock as they are distracted looking for clues or somthing, i usually keep it comedic so as to not punish them for engaing in a smart or roleplay appropriate manner. Saying all this I do agree that there are definately times when rolling should not be used and even in this example the rule here holds true, if you cant think of somthing to supprise the players then its better to not role. Just thought I would give my imput as a relatively new DM who has benefitted greatly from the running the game seriers. Huge thank you to @mcolville for making ttrpgs so much more fun for me and my friends.
My rule of thumb is: Rolls when things are hard and they could fail or have a hard time, and when things could be funny if they flub a roll.
The hard rolls could cause some danger or road blocks if they don't make the roll (anything below a DC 12 isn't really pointful).
The flub roll, for example trying to not drop a cake on your friend. Usually this rolls isn't usually hard, (DC 10 or less) but if they fail it could be entertaining.
One thing I also do when it comes to some check, Success with complications: if they are checking coats in a closet and don't roll very well at all, they might rip a coat or drop the coat rack. This is not a fail state, they still find clues in the coats, but now they might get in trouble.
7:14 I disagree. I've been a DM since Modlvay and still find videos like these to be informative if not affirmative of my choices. I had an oils instructor who was always reminding us that the moment you feel you know your technique, it's time to learn it again. It's why every time D&D comes out with a starter set, I buy it and run it for my players.
Matt, I sure you get comments like this all the time. However, you truly are an amazing inspiration for DMs and those who are to afraid to DMs. No matter the topic of the video, you express the ways in which everyone can accomplish the task at hand without putting out the message “this is the correct and only way to do it”. You give great and introspective advice for people to truly determined the way in which they can rationalize their own opinion and style to perform the ever changing and exhausting experience of a DM. Your advice is truly helpful and is greatly appreciated and I hope you continue to do more. From all those who appreciate you.
Great video. Appreciate the short length and focus on a practical topic!
I find also getting the players to buy into the concept that "failure is FUN and creative" helps free me up to think of failure cases for rolls. A table where everyone gets a KICK out of a food stuck in a door instead of only wanting to "win".
As a professional educator, this is one of the best D&D advice videos I've ever seen. You did an excellent job of showing the right choice at different skillsets and making each of those choices seem both clear and valid. Will absolutely be sharing with the 50ish middle schoolers in the club I run. Thanks for this!
I like it when players describe what they'd like to attempt and the DM tells them if a roll is needed and which roll it would be. It prevents frustration from rolling when success is impossible and also keeps players from just rolling all the time and taking the narrative flow out of the DM's hands.
In regards to DC setting, I think it also makes a lot of sense to scale DC per PC.
For instance, the warlock grew up in a witch's hut, while the fighter was brought up in a military family. It would make more sense for the Warlock to identify a toxic potion ingredient than the fighter, even if they both have a -1 Int modifier and neither took Nature or Arcane.
In that instance I wouldn't change the DC, but either give the Warlock Advantage, or the Fighter Disadvantage.
@@TheElectrikCow that's fair, but in the moment, at the table, I usually think of it after the dice are rolled anyway. "You both rolled an 11? Well, YOU'D know because..."
Hm I don't know about that. It is hard enough as a GM to find the correct DC on the spot, having to think about all the random half-sentences in the players backstory, is imo too much to ask. If the players themselves get the idea, that something they did in the past could help, I could see myself lowering the DC by 1 or 2, but even then I am not sure if I like it. The character sheet encompasses the knowledge of the character and if nothing suggests that he is better in this task than the fighter, he probably slept through potion class.
@@gknucklez sure, I don't think it works for everyone, but as far as the second bit goes, I think the way I do it feels better for my players who put some thought into their backstory. Our characters are more than what they are on their sheets, you know? Little bonuses off-book reinforce that, I think.
@@gknucklez The character sheet *abstracts* the knowledge of the character, it summarizes and suggests it. But it doesn't encompass it. It's too small a document to encompass the knowledge of a full being. Where's the bit that talks about how they learned to tie their shoes, or eat without choking? Where's the part where they learned to sign their name with a flourish, or how to remember the colours that mix together to make others. I don't have painting proficiency but I know my primary colours and basic colour theory. Does the fighter know how to shave? I don't see it on his sheet. But telling the dwarf he doesn't know how to braid his beard or trim it would be silly, right?
There's reams of stuff that does not fit on a sheet, and those things exist in an agreed upon space of abstraction between the players, the game, and the DM. The sheet isn't expected to represent every aspect of a character (Also, on the 5e sheet and most I've seen, there's a whole box for history. That is as relevant as anything else, yet far too small to be a comprehensive rundown of everything they've ever experienced.) nor is a player or DM expected to have every aspect of a character's history detailed. These are evolving things that come up according to context.
If the Fighter was raised in a military camp, and the Warlock was raised in the woods. Why does the Fighter need to roll to know where the latrine is likely to be, and why would the Warlock possibly be able to beat them at it? Some things are just things we know, *not all advantages need to be the result of a dice roll.* If the Warlock was raised in a poisoner's hut, even if they never learned how to make poison, they'd probably know Blackwort was poisonous, cause they saw the labels or someone told them not to drink it. Fighter might never have seen it at all. (I don't know how to make Windex, and I have no particular expertise in it's use, but I know not to drink the stuff.)
As an experienced DM, I love to pause videos like this, and mull over the question - come up with an answer and brew some ideas. Then I unpause and see if I can get another answer and add a whole other set of solutions to my toolbox.
It's a mental exercise *and* (ideally) advice all in one, so I think these are more useful to experienced DMs than inexperienced ones - because we already have our own ideas about how to go about things to add to and this lets us practice those skills.
My solution, for those comment readers:
Success, you smack the door in to the face of a mook (much like Matt's solution), knocking them prone. Fail, the door falls off its hinges and the kicker starts the combat prone!
When you click the link it opens it up in a new tab, it 100% should add it to your watch queue though, that's a great idea for a change.
I've been playing TTRPGs, more specifically DnD 3.5, for 13 years now. I've DM'd for 12 of those years. Yet, every time Matt pops off with a banger like this, I learn something new. Man, I love this game!
While I felt like I understood this concept before, as a still relatively new DM putting it in terms of the truth table is a great and I will definitely start thinking about necessity of future rolls in terms of the truth table.
I've not been DMing a long time - it was about 25 years between first playing as a teen and then picking it up again as an adult - but I now have the advantage of experience and wisdom and can handle the sessions well. However, it's always great watching one of Matt's videos because it allows me to actively think about the topic he is presenting, get his (another DM's) perspective on it, and it also renews my excitement about my next session and DMing, in general.
I'm an old DM. However, I do find it helpful when Matt articulates something that's been in the back of my head for a while. Thanks!
Matt: To answer your question about the Info button in the top right, no, you can't immediately add it to your "Watch Later" queue for later. On PC browsers, clicking the info button does pause the current video, change to a new tab and opens the linked video there, so you can always go back pretty easily. Additionally, info linked videos are among the first 10-15 results shown in the right-sidebar on PC browsers (and you can add it to Watch Later or any other playlist you want from hovering on it there).
On the TH-cam app (at least, on Android devices), in full-screen clicking the info button prompt opens a sidebar (the current video is not paused) with a full link to that video. Clicking that entry then interrupts the current video entirely (does not put it in a queue) and if you want to return you have to manually go back to the original video (and it's not easy to do so). On the TH-cam app in portrait view, clicking the info prompt scrolls the bottom half of the app (the current video is not paused) to a section which lists that video as if it was a search result (where you can then click a small "dots" icon to add it to Watch Later or a playlist). Clicking that entry has the same result as in full-screen.
I still think the info button feature is worth it, but it's much better to ALSO include links to those videos in the current video description, prefixed with a timestamp to the start of the current script paragraph (or to the start of that video chapter) and the title of the linked video, as this future-proofs the current video in case the info link feature ever goes away or changes.
For example, you could include these two lines at the start of the current video description:
5:42 Many Fail States
th-cam.com/video/l1zaNJrXi5Y/w-d-xo.html
Including timestamps like this of every significant chapter in the video creates a "Chapter List", like seen in the video description for this compilation video:
th-cam.com/video/_AXIOfilxi0/w-d-xo.html
When a video description includes many timestamps in that format with titles attached, TH-cam (currently anyway) will segment your video into Chapters with titles shown in the bar at the bottom of the video viewer (next to the current timestamp). The viewer can then cycle through the chapters by either using CTRL+LEFT/RIGHT (on PCs) or by clicking on the current chapter title in the bottom bar. On the TH-cam app, tapping the chapter title in the bottom bar brings up the chapter list.
One of the favorite things my DM did was really reward good ideas. It helped cultivate a sense of immersion. The only dice rolling he did was on his end "to see if the enemy notices the parties actions"
I asked him what the check was when I started my first DM campaign. He told me that just rolling the d20 (he had a heavy metal die) would spook us. If he thought there was a reasonable chance the enemy could notice us, then he'd actually role (i.e adult green dragon stretching before settling back down for a rest). What a great way of building tension
While experienced DMs might already know this, sometimes it's good to be reminded. It's also good to hear it through someone else's words as it give you a broader appreciation of the mechanics.
Having the mindset of “just having a good idea can lead to a mechanical advantage” really can free up the DM to make encounters challenging for the players… and I mean “the players” not just “the player’s characters.” To me this is the point of the game: if you just wanted to challenge the character, you don’t need the player do you?
Hey Matt! Coming to the comment section from 5:50 in the video 😂 I actually use that feature a lot. That i button drops down a list of all the linked videos throughout your video, so you can go back to the links at any time. Also yes, I finish watching the video all the way through, going back afterwards if a linked video intrigued me. Hope this helps!! 😁
There is a secondary reason you might want get your players to roll and some reasons you might want to not have your players roll even if it is important to pushing the story
Rolling can signal that things are about to change in the game and can help bring checked out players back to the table, conversely when your players are really engaged in the story asking for a roll can break players out of their flow state. Asking for a roll can be tool for engagement.
Also there is a style of role-playing that doesn't involve skill checks at all. It works best with a GM and one player, the idea is that it runs very much like telling a story and what makes it entertaining and worthwhile are the same things that make listening to somebody make up a story are entertaining. What makes it different to just making up a story is that the GM is taking the players input seriously and improvising off of that. A good story has triumphs and setbacks, there is tension and release, unexpected twists and turns. You can import some of this style of playing into your game, instead of asking for your players to make a roll, make the thing the most interesting or the thing the story needs at that point happen. This can improve how engaging your games are as a GM but there are a few things to keep in mind. Pay attention to the input from players and make sure it feels like they have an appropriate level of agency, enough that they feel they can influence outcomes not so much that there is no tension. Make sure you are balancing the good and bad outcomes with the players, one of the main reasons to have skill checks and involve dice is that nobody is going to blame an inanimate object for having favourite players but they will blame you the GM. Always narrate a success or failure appropriate to the skill level that the character is supposed to have, If you are going to have skilled character fail at something they are good at, make sure the reason makes sense for a skilled person.
Running Blades in the Dark really thought me this. Half the rolls result in mixed success, so players are often failing forward, but it also means that if you can't think of some dramatic fail state, you should just let them do it. Also the manual makes a point to tell you that the characters should still feel heroic, so you tend to let them do what they wanted to do when rolling, just adding an unforeseen consequence, extra tension or showing that the enemy was just that good that it didn't go as well as they hoped
Everyone should try Blades in the Dark at least once, just because it has such a different approach to the game. My personal favorite thing is the flashback mechanic and how they let you choose what equipment you brought during the mission, so your character ends up seeming intelligent and well-prepared as opposed to just having a backpack worth of useless junk you never used and having to come up with a ton of contingency plans that never come to fruitition before the adventure happens.
Blades in the Dark has also given me the idea of failing forward mixed with devil’s bargains, which could work slightly differently in this context. Take the door. If there isn’t something like a group of enemies on the other side of the door, you can use a bit of wobbly time to ask players what they want to happen. Like “you can tell that you have done all you can to this lock, and you won’t be able to crack it. You can choose to force it, which will break your pick, and also the lock (which is evidence that you were here, if that’s relevant). But it will maintain your stealth for now, and get you through the door. Or you can try something else.”
Failing forward is something I struggle with constructing as a GM, but I really want to be good at it, and Blades is a great practice arena.
@@VeronicaWarlock agreed it can be a lot of fun, first time I run it for a group of friends, I tod the Face of the group:" you can get an extra die charming this guard to get through, but he's gonna fall madly in love with you" the idea of giving roleplaying consequences really made the game click for them
"time" was my favorite word in this video. we're here to roll dice so even if I don't want a player to fail, I will still have them roll. however, I will sometimes precedent a roll with "this won't determine if you succeed or fail... this will determine how long it takes you to do it". for instance, yes you still kick the door down but you rolled terribly and the enemies are not "surprised" because they heard your FIRST kick on the door a few seconds ago, now roll for regular initiative. (time is way more spicy when you give players clocks or reasons to hurry, which I enjoy doing.)
This is the reason I had a lot of trouble with Dungeon World.
For Dungeon World, rolls can be "Yes", "Yes, but" or "no and". And I often struggled with coming up with "Yes, but" responses on the fly.
"If you cannot think of things to happen in both positive and negative situations, then dont roll" is excellent advice.
I have been DMing for 39 years... Even if I do already know most of your advice, your videos are good reminders, thought-provoking, and a source of inspiration. So much so that there are many I watched more than once. Plus, you are very intertaining !
You are not the only DM advice channel I watch, but you are by far my favorite.
Signed : You're Québec no. 1 fan.
This is a lesson that, I think, most DMs come to just through sheer raw experience. This fundamentally changes the roll of the dice to “the scene is progressing, one way or another.”
This is so simple but I can see it dramatically improving my games. Let players who are strong just do strong things, let the theif pick the lock if they aren't pressed for time. Thank you for this Matt! I'll be trying my best to implement it in my game tonight. :)
I like getting different takes on how to deal with things that arise during a game session. I been playing with the same group of people since the 80's so fresh perspectives is good to put in the old brain box.
Really solid advice. I think it's useful to remind GMs that you don't necessarily need to have both outcomes determined before you tell the player to roll. If you have a situation that you know is dramatic, and have at least one outcome in your mind but can't quite get there on outcome #2, sometimes you should just ask the player to roll anyway! Then, if by the time everything resolves and you still don't have a suitable outcome figured out, just let everyone know you need a minute. You're not in front of a camera with thousands of people hanging on your every word -- you're at your kitchen table with friends who just want to have a good time. Heck, it might even be good to call for a break right now and let the mind juices ferment. You're juggling multiple things at once at any given moment so asking for a minute once in awhile to really hammer home a flavourful outcome can't be that unreasonable, can it? Players do it all the time in combat, why should the GM be pressured into a higher standard?
Games like Dungeon World and Blade in the Dark taught me that your hunch of the scene being suitably dramatic is a good enough reason for a roll and that you shouldn't burden yourself with the unrealistic expectation of having the perfect answer immediately all the time forever. Sometimes it's just better to lean back, take a deep breath, and let your players know you need a moment to think on the situation because that roll was just _that_ important.
The scenario with the player getting his foot/leg stuck in the door is exactly what happened when I DMed my 2nd or 3rd game ever. Half-Orc fighter rolled a nat 1 on his attempt. One of the funniest moments that I had DMed up to that point.
A rules of thumb I use are:
• If it’s so easy the player can’t fail on a 1, don’t roll
• If it’s so easy it may as well be DC 1 don’t roll
• If it’s so hard the player can’t pass on a 20, don’t roll
• If they HAVE to learn about, discover, or unlock a thing in order for the story to happen you might not want them to roll- what happens if they nat1 after all.
One of the things that I have realized reading other systems is the emphasis on horizontal progression. Rather than saying no to a player when they failed a roll, make something interesting happen instead that gives the players another problem to solve rather than making them sit there waiting until they have a better idea. A thief could fail a lockpick check, and instead of their pin breaking, the lock could still be unlocked but guards could be on their way and they heard someone fiddling the lock. The players are able to advance and the game doesn't go to a standstill.
I'm not let down, it's a good refresher on *why* we do things the way we do them. After a while, you just start running on instinct, and then you know when to call for a roll or not, but why can become one of those things a little difficult to put into words. Videos like this provide the words.
The river flows.
I hail from a simulationist school in that regard.
The first question I ask is "is the outcome uncertain?" This alone filters out ridiculiusly easy and hard tasks. The next question is "does failure make a difference?" If failure doesn't make a difference, then I just assume that the player rolled a 20. If the check still fails, then the task is just beyond the capability of the character.
In the "kicking down the door" situation, I strongly dislike that the outcome of failure is that the monsters heard the planning and thus surprised the player characters. The check tests if the character is strong enough to kick down the door. If the result is negative, this does not lead to the monsters having overheard the planning.
While i generally agree that not every advantage has to be "earned" with a die roll, I do think that the described situation is a cool opportunity to let a characters great strength make a difference - or to punish the scrawny rogue for lacking that power.
There doesn't need to be a "dramatic" consequence for failure - just a meaningful. If a character failed at kicking down the door, then the surprise is ruined. After that, if the characters continue to kick the door, they can succeed automatically because the result no longer makes a difference.
I would describe failure somewhat like this: "your feet crashes into the door and almost throws it open. After this kick, it wouldn't need much to crash through it."
The last thing I would like to add is: if a player announces that their character tries to kick down the door, the answer should not be to call for a roll. The answer should be that the door looks sturdy and might withstand a kick. This gives them the opportunity to approach the problem in a different way - maybe they want to improvise a ram. Maybe they want to open the door slightly instead and then dramatically kick open the rest of the way. It gives them an interesting choice and that is what the game is really about.
I like to do multiple DCs whenever possible, and split those into states such as "Failure" (negative consequences of the action taken), "Success, But..." (you might get the main result of the check, but not the desired result), "Success" (you get the desired result) and "Success, And..." (you get the desired result, and a little extra). With the door example, that would probably look like this:
Success, And: With a mighty blow, the door comes clean off the hinges and hits Enemy A, roll 1d6 Bludgeoning Damage then everyone roll initiative, the monsters are surprised.
Success: The door swings open with the force of your boot and slams into the wall, roll initiative, the monsters are surprised.
Success, But: Boot slams against the door, there's a loud thud. After a brief moment, an enemy opens the door. Roll initiative, neither party is surprised.
Failure: You take a run at the door, but before you make a connection, it swings open. Roll initiative, the party are surprised.
The DC is set based on the type of door. A large wooden / iron door will be higher than a small, standard door. If it's something that would be a DC 12 normally, then the variable DCs are 22 (Success, And)
Blades in the Dark completely changed how I think about rolling.
Basically, in blades: your character wants soemthing > there is an obstacle > you decide how to tackle the obsctacle > you roll
If there was no obstacle, or it is trivial (for example, picking a simple lock is trivial most of the time), there is no roll.
The obstacle can be guards, a wall blocking your way, the distrust of an NPC you want as an ally, the suspicion agianst you, just anything
You can get through an entire fight with one roll. None of this 1 hour of rolling attacks and damage.
On a roll, you can get a success, partial success and failure. Partial success lets you get what you want, but there is a complication, harm, or any other bad situation. Can be a wound (you defeat the guard but he also hits you), or something that changes the situation (you defeat the guard, but with his last breath he calls for help). Failures mean you fail, and you get a bad complication.
Enemies don't get rolls. All the harm you get is from your failures or partial successes.
There is no DC, but the DM can decide your success will only have "limited effect" if you are trying something too difficult.
I also like to think of this in almost the opposite way. Depending on the roll, how well they succeed or how hard they fail inspires what happens, just like in Matt's examples. Feels good if you're in the flow and rolling with it!
Middle mouse click (or ctrl click) to open in a new tab to watch later (or add to a list to watch later and never get around to)
Actually, as an experienced DM, I like it when you sort of state something I already know. In a way, it's as if you help me voice to myself why I do this or that in a game, and, quite frankly, sometimes it makes me realise how important (or uselss) that little thing is for players. So thanks even if I already know and apply this or that!
I have the same thought about combat rolls. Why roll if the success or failure of "an attack" is not something dramatic? Subtracting 7 or 17 hit points from a sack of 82 hit points is not dramatic. A thought for doing away with hit points: advances & setbacks, advantages & disadvantage (not to be confused with the 5e mechanic). A successful combat roll might mean your opponent is now off-balance, or disarmed, momentarily confused or distracted, fell for a feint leaving them open. These make your opponents next action more difficult and/or your next action easier -- but you have to do something that takes advantage of the situation. Likewise failure on combat rolls give you setbacks: you become unbalanced, disarmed, guard down leaving you open. The degree of success or failure can determine the degree of advance or setback. Extreme success might be an instant kill, for example. In general the killing or disabling blow will occur with a high success when your net advantage (opponent's disadvantage) is high and you roll high on an action that could kill. No more hit points.
No more of this: "I attack", "roll to hit", "17", "that hits, roll damage", "eh... 3... plus 4... 7!", "the goblin takes 7 points of damage. Ok who's turn is next?".
Instead, this:
Rogue: "I try to duck & roll under the dragon's belly to slice it open... argh 4!",
_GM: "Well, you miss-time it as the dragon shifts its footing and roll right into its foreleg. You find yourself on your back, lying across two of its foreclaws(which currently dig into the ground beneath you), and you are looking straight up into one wide gleaming eye of the dragon who, up until now, had taken no notice of you."_
Ranger(who has been lining up a shot): "I think from where I am, that eye makes a great target. I loose my arrow straight at the dragon's eye! Even if I miss, maybe I distract it from the Rogue: "...14. Does that hit?!".
_GM: "Well, your arrow glances off the bony ridge above the dragon's eye, losing most of its force, but it does slightly scratch its cornea. The dragon winces, rears up, and sends the rogue flying with a backhanded toss... 20. Wow. Rogue, you go flying 40' back all the way to those columns near the entrance. Roll dex to see if you avoid cracking your head on that pillar. Meanwhile, the dragon turns to you [ranger] and you have its full attention. It seems to be inhaling deeply..."_
Rogue: 19!
_GM: "You manage a mid-air spin and land crouched on your feet. What do you want to do?"_
Rogue: "It's about to breath fire. I duck behind the column and then get lost in the shadows after that fire-hose stops. ...13."
GM: "The dragon is paying you no mind, and you are now deep in the shadows, we'll come back to you in a moment."
Ranger: "I know a blast is coming, I start running perpendicular to the line of fire, while rapid firing arrows at its face more for distraction than effect... ...with bonuses 22"
_GM: "Even as the dragon starts breathing a jet of flame, tracking you as you run, you send a flurry of arrows into its face, causing it to wince & squint & throwing its aim off, making it easier for you to dodge the jet of flame about to sweep over you. How do you avoid the flame?"_
Ranger: "Hmm... sweeping over me? Just as the jet of flame is about to sweep over me I hit the deck, flat, and after it sweep over (hopefull above) me, I'll roll behind that statue for additional cover."
_GM: "roll acrobatics... hmmm 14? That's actually enough given the success of your distracting shots. You flatten to the ground and are only singed by the flames, with a loose flap of your cloak catching fire. Then you roll and get behind the statue giving you cover and the jet of flame sweeps back. When the flames stop, you see the dragon stagger slightly and claw at its nose. With that 22, one of your distracting shots went up it nose! You can see half the shaft still sticking out. The dragon seems rather distracted with trying to remove it. So, now, both of you, what do you want to do?"_
In general, I can appreciate the way Matt views this issue, but the philosophy of only ever having rolls produce dramatic outcomes can often lead to situations where actions do not necessarily have logical consequences, such as one character failing a strength check meaning the whole party was talking too loudly while planning to kick the door down, which doesn't really follow as a natural consequence, which hurts verisimilitude as well as the player's ability to feel like they have a logical effect on the game world
This is excellent advice for more than one reason. As a DM I like calling for rolls because it seems to add to the reality of the universe. It is still bad to mechanically roll all of the time, so the desire to make every roll interesting is a great motivator and source of inspiration.
I kid you not I just DMd a session with this EXACT example that illustrates how that motivation adds so much to the game:
My players had decided to kick down a door because they heard a group of hobgoblins on the other side, and that's all that was the combat: defeat the hobgoblins. If any escape they will alert the big bad and make the final combat more difficult by bolstering the ranks. Cookie cutter D&D combat. And my initial decision was cookie cutter as well: Succeed the roll and you get it in one kick for surprise, Fail and it takes two kicks, ruining surprise.
They succeeded but I thought adding surprise wasn't interesting enough, and that gave me a burst of inspiration which morphed the entire scene, and probably the campaign. They burst in to see the hobgoblins all prone, covering their ears with their backs to a table covered in alchemical reagents with a big glass jug filled with violent yellow fluid. My players rightly guessed that they were making explosive and mistook the source of the sudden BANG, and completed the combat and final combat without accidentally/on-purpose detonating the explosive jug.
Now I have a thread to pull to better flesh out the Big Bads plan and motivation and even better, my players are now in possession of a jug of potent explosive. It will certainly shatter a small piece of my world at some point and I have NO IDEA how or to what effect. It's gonna be a good campaign, and all the better because I wasn't satisfied with boring outcomes to rolls.
I'm a long-time GM, and I *love* this advice! I was entirely in the initial group you described, and I'm between DMs 1 and 2. I wanna be the 3rd! Thank you for helping me get there
"If your PCs have weirdly higher or lower bonuses than the rules expect, you can sort of normalize things by adjusting what medium difficulty is."
Not sure exactly what "Weirdly" means here but as a player I'd rather have consistency. If I invest into having an amazing lockpicking proficiency only to have every subsequent lock become inexplicable harder, that feels bad. I invested in picking locks so that I could pick locks reliably.
I have been GMing for decades and these videos still provide me with ideas, affirmation of ideas I have been using, and an opportunity to examine or re-examine ideas I have not been using. It is not exactly a dialogue, but I often find myself replying vocally, nodding my head, etc... Perhaps I am mad but these videos are good for me as well.
Fun Check: I think the foot through door is hilarious, and can be also be tense (thinking of a scene in the Dirty Dozen when one character's foot goes through the roof/ceiling), but not every player enjoys a bit of slapstick or mild humiliation. Just remember to check in with your players about what kind of funny they prefer.
5:50 Yeah I don't know about the TH-cam corner link thing. I watch these on my phone and never use them. There's times I would maybe at the end of a video, but it's a pain to go back and find the link unless it's in the description.
Edit: actually on mobile you can get a list of linked videos if you tap on the gear icon and "more from". It's a little obscured but more convenient than scrolling back through the video to find the link
I especially loved your shout out for experienced dms at the end. I religiously consumed everything by bloggers and TH-camrs for DnD and I noticed over the past couple of months that their advice starts to loose their magic. I have outgrown the basic advice and now I only need specific advice for very specific problems.
I thought for a month that I just wasn't into the hobby as much anymore but I rlnow recognize that through the wonderful advice from you and other creators I have grown so much that I am at or just slightly below the level of yall. This makes me really grateful and I wanted to thank you for your work and for making all dms that watch you better
6:00 - jeez I never thought of that. I've never clicked one of those cards, and at least on mobile, it pops open a little preview window, which lets me wait ton click through it until I'm done on this one, which isn't quite the same but isn't useless either.
Yeah, I often feel like Very Online folks whose first exposure is streamed games fall into this trap pretty readily, because Actual Plays are also shows and so sometimes die rolls are opportunities for touchstone moments.
For example, I think Mercer calls for rolls too often as determinants of outcomes. By contrast, Brennan Lee Mulligan overuses them for exposition but handwaves some things that might have a dramatic outcome in favor of pace. Both make sense for their games, in a context where the game is not just for the people at the table but also a show.
I generally think if there isn't a compelling result for failure, then it's either no roll or roll with advantage so we can determine the degree of awesomeness, because sometimes a player wants to see their +13 To Athletics turn a 16 into a 29, and who am I to say no.
Hey Matt, just wanted to provide my take on your comments on long terms DMs who know all this.
Just wanted to say that I've been Running the Game for about 15 years now. Long time DM. This advice is actually super helpful. A great refersher and reminder for me to consider when I ask for rolls. A well timed roll can make or break drama.
So even though I did already know all this, still a super useful reminder. Thanks as always!
🤣🤣 I'm a mainly Sci-fi modeller who has taken up mini painting for a bit variety, colour and as a palate cleanser. As a noob your comment about being okay with sucking at it for quite a long time really hit me - so true!
This is why I like a yes and, no but mechanic. One thing I do is if you beat by 5 or more you get a yes and even more cool stuff. Hit the target and you get a simple yes. Miss by one you get a no but something ok for you happens as well. Miss by more than 5 and you get a no and also this really sucks. So No and would be your failed to kick open the door dramatically and the monsters suprise you. No but might look like no drama, but no monster surprise. Yes gets you the drama opening and a cool scene. The big roll gets you a surprise round.
Thanks for brining this up in a video.
This is excellent advice. Personally, I think this might be one of the most useful tips for a new DM/GM. And it is one I have not read anywhere since 84 when I started GMing.
I love this! I was literally running a game a few weeks ago where my players tried kicking down a door and they got their foot caught in it. This ended up slowing them down in their pursuit of a villain and it resulted in a new recurring bad guy. I love any advice that encourages us to think dramatically with pro/con results for player rolls.
I've DMed in the past and while I love the idea conceptually, there was always something awkward I felt I was missing, and I feel this video has exactly what I needed
I agree with everything here except setting DC on a curve. If the GM raises the DC because you're good at the skill, what's the point in investing in that skill?
I once played at a Pathfinder Society event and had a character with a +8 survival. The GM asked for survival checks to cross a swamp, and each roll got slightly harder than the last. We weren't under a time pressure, so I took 10 on each check. I passed the first three checks, but I could tell the GM was getting upset that I wasn't picking up the die. He wanted me to fail. I decided to roll the last check and succeeded. After the roll, I asked the GM point blank: if I had taken 10 again, would you have failed me no matter what the DC was? He said yes, and it soured me on society so hard I've never gone back.
As a longtime DM and a martial artist, I look at the last statement before the sales pitch through a different lens than a lot of people. "Longtime DMs may be let down because...the more experience you have, the more specific your advice needs to be."
There is no such thing as knowing the basics too well. There is no such thing as reviewing the basics too much. In many martial arts, a black belt means that you have mastered the basics, but still have a lot to learn, which is why there are various levels of black belt. You can be a 6th degree black belt and still have a lifetime of learning ahead of you, and the same is true of storytelling.
I’d also say that just allowing a success instead of requiring a roll can occasionally help reinforce a players characterization of there character. If a player asks something that might be a history check and their characters backstory has them as a relevant expert in history, just say “you’d be aware of this:…” or if a characters core concept revolves around being an investigator, sometimes just respond with “you notice ” and then maybe ask for a roll if they want to discern more. While it’s true that the dice can help tell a story I often find it can feel crappy if a player built a whole character around certain skills and yet constantly fail to utilize them purely due to bad rolls. Pure rng can be funny if thats your bag, but it can also get in the way of a story your collaboratively crafting sometimes.
As an experienced DM I find your videos useful because a) it gives me a chance to reflect on my own practice and b) sometimes it's good for some re-enforcement if I've recently had a situation that I wonder whether I should have done things differently. I don't think we're ever so experienced that some advice/discussion isn't worth thinking about
Matt- this is a fantastic video. The fusion of the why and the how has always been a component of your classic running the game videos. Adding this game crunch to narrative structure and dramatic tension? *chef's kiss
Thanks for the video! I thought this was very succinct and put into words something that's been stuck in my head for a while. I've been an on-again off-again DM for a few years, and found this advice on when to ask for rolls really helpful
"Just having good ideas is a good enough reason to earn a mechanical advantage."
YES! One of the things I do in my games that two of my DMs have adopted into theirs is offering DC reductions, advantage, bonuses to checks, etc. if they can be creative in how they do things. Sometimes what they describe is so awesome I just let it happen their way.
There was a plot-device disease ravaging a city. One of the players was infected with it. The party was like level 6 and needed to cure it but according to my DM fiat they needed stronger. There were temples around that had clerics that could perform medicinal rituals to cure the disease, but they felt pressed for time and didn't want to expose themselves further at that moment.
I told them based on a solid medicine check that if you just cast Lesser Restoration, you'll have a small chance of success. However, if you can come up with a creative way in which you attempt to cure it, I'll adjust things to make it easier. They came up with an elaborate ritual using holy water, lesser restoration, and basically cleaning the blood using the holy water (like plasmapheresis DND style). They added a couple of other Lesser Restorations and a Lay on Hands to bolster it further. I did a fun description of the ritual and just said you successfully cure the disease.
Even for minor things. Paladin has Divine Sense, wants to try to sense if there are are fiends, undead, or whatever on the island they were marooned on. I told him it's 60 ft. to just use it normally, but give me a reason to extend the range and I'll do it. He did a small ritual using some mundane items and meditated during a short rest. Good stuff. He got to detect almost the entire island from his position.
If you expend time, resources, and creative juice, you should get added benefits for doing so. And DMs should be looking for reasons to say yes, not to say no.
I think it's also worth mentioning (because this addresses a fallacy I often fall subject to) that it's okay, possibly even good, to blend practices. In this case, for instance, it's probably good to reach for, "only roll when equally dramatic," but to sometimes ask for a roll when the outcome is uncertain but you can't think of a dramatic failure right away. Maybe you come up with something, maybe you don't have to, or maybe you don't, but I think it can help reinforce the verisimilitude of the world, and make dice rolls a little less scary. Which is good, because players can be terribly risk averse sometimes.
Yeah. You don't want every dice roll to be summoning Godzilla or it means that the players will stop asking to do things in case they go wrong.
In the example given in the video, it should be possible for the players to determine that their foot might go through the door if they kick it in some way. Otherwise with some tables it's just going to seem like the DM is punishing the player for a failed roll (when not getting surprise is already a punishment).
Honestly this is a nice refresher for me as a seasoned GM thank you I needed something like this to help me
Hahaha the monster opens the door and you tumble in or your leg gets stuck. You speak and gold comes out. My pcs/friends will get some seriously needed laughter from you Mr. Matthew. Thank you!!!
Love the video! Want to add if I may, i also find making players roll for things they might know, although failure doesn't add anything, you can make it do so: giving false information or even slightly off information, give the players a bit of knowledge then something another player knows is wrong. Lastly, a classic in my game "you remember your mentor trying to teach you about this, but your young mind was bored, and didn't pay attention." Then they can go to their mentor, or give them a name of a book they studied so they may hunt it down. Progression with failure, as you said!
Dude, even when I think “I know all about this topic.” A little voice says, “There’s still hidden nuggets. Listen.”
And sure enough, the four different door kicking outcomes are pure gold I’d never thought of.
You’re the goat!
Excellent advice as always. And maybe not all experienced DM's have everything figured out, you know.
This is what Aabria Iyengar said in E5 of EXU, in response to Anjali Bhimani's moment of indecision.
ANJALI: I am debating whether I have to relieve him of said vestige at any given point for his own safety. Can I make a roll to make that decision?
AABRIA: Now, rolls are like-- Meta-conversation, rolls are where a decision and the universe may disagree on a course of action.... We don't disagree because you haven't made a choice. So, do what you think you need to do.
I like to do a ‘and/but’ with die roles. If a player roles and succeeds but only just the result is a ‘yes, but’ - they get what they want but with an unintended small consequence. If they succeed by a lot they get an unintended benefit. The same for failures. It forces me to think creatively and not just give a green light or red light.
I think for older DMs there can still be benefit in these videos. Like, I in my tenure might have identified the same quandary and come up with the solution “I don’t need to make them roll for everything. I can just have them roll for some stuff,” and I might have some internal ideas of what that stuff is, but it’s very likely that I’ve never put that idea into specific words or even thought to try to do so, and having it clearly stated here might provide some more clear and satisfying parameters for making that choice.
I know of two ways to make failing to force a door open dramatic. This will likely cause players to develop an unnatural fear of doors. A) After a minute or two the door creeks open. The bad guys inside the room conceal themselves or escape the room. Just before doing so they set a trap inside of the room. B) One of the bad guy(s) approaches the players from the direction they came from. The bad guy serves as a distraction for the players. Meanwhile, the other bad guys inside of the room open the door. Blocking the players escape.
A great option for DMs that want to reward a good idea from a character that should be able to do it is to say that *they* can definitely do that - because their [relevant skill] is so high that they wouldn't fail even on a 1. It really makes the player feel like they made good choices and that their character is achieving their role fantasy.
You are on fire in this one! Great stuff. Bonus points for TEAR DOWN THE WALL!
I feel like I've already seen this video before. I definitely remember hearing the bit about failing to kick the door down and the monsters open the door and surprise the players.
I agree with this principle, especially from a DM perspective, but sometimes players love rolling.They want to roll for all sorts of silly things, one of my favorite moments of comedic pvp (the only kind our table allows) was when one player completely randomly said "I want to roll to hide a fish in the fighters pillow" and the session descended into chaos for like an hour as the prank war was on. It was great.
Long time DM - this was STILL super useful. I find myself doing these things without thinking - but intentionality helps do things better!
I did something like the example here recently in my pathfinder campaign, where a large sized PC wanted to smash through a wall instead of going through a normal sized door. I had the rubble crush the enemy standing on the other side, with a reflex save to not be pinned under it. It also created two squares of difficult terrain, though that was more of a hindrance to the PCs in this situation. The thing I didn't do was think of an interesting failure result. If I applied that part of this video to it, I probably would have had the success be burying the enemy in rubble and failure being creating difficult terrain.
3.5 set simple DCs at 5 and 10 because it also had the mechanic of "taking 10," which is to say "If you are not threatened or otherwise in distress, you can take a 10 in lieu of rolling." Which means a DC 10 difficulty is "If someone is not literally holding a sword in your face, you succeed, even if you don't have any training!"