If you aren't having fun, or see a problem in your game, talk to your DM about it. While the lesson you are providing is valuable, I can't help but think if that DM sees this video they are going to be crushed.
Completely agree though this video was focused more on the importance of player agency so I didn't go into everything as that would make the video pretty long, but you're absolutely correct.
I roll in the open and almost always don't fudge. Or on the very rare occasion i do fudge, i fudge in the open. And take feedback. Though player agency... Player agency is very important. Treat it with respect and use it. Don't take it away hastily. But sometimes it's gotta go... Again though, in the open and with respect. But you might just fail a saving throw vs charm or something. Temp loss of agency there, in the open and with all due respect.
Sounds like you now have a good session 0 for your next adventure. I’d recommend you ask the DM for Open rolls Session debriefs Play style and the usual safety tools Honestly, the game IS communication and I strongly suggest trying open communication. There’s no other way to be happy with the game Thanks for sharing!!
for open rolls, I roll in the open about 95% of the time. i believe there should be times where players should not know the outcome of a roll but i always roll in the open with people i haven't run for before. i trust my group and like to think they trust me so the enemy perception rolls during stealth are secret, social rolls are usually hidden, event rolls are secret secret etc. I believe when a group gets experienced and you become better at context clues in your descriptions and wording it really lets you keep more secrets for a more engaging experience. i never fake a roll though, what is rolled is rolled and both they and i have to deal with that, even when it means some content is getting binned. when high tension moments happen i roll in the open but use a cup to do so, hiding the die from both myself and the players until they roll, its really quite fun and terrifying for all of us.
I feel for that DM, I try to keep all fights close and make sure the players win, HOWEVER, I always roll in the open and while I don't share exact HP, I show the enemy health bars in Roll20 which gives players a sense of how much health is left. Players can absolutely die in my campaign, especially if the party proceeds recklessly and doesn't use smart tactics. If a party blows all their resources too soon, I'm ok with letting them walk into an unwinnable fight. Funny enough, the reason why my last campaign ended was because half the original party had to drop out due to scheduling and the replacement players had zero sense of combat tactics which led to a TPK. In the post-mortem, I learned that the replacement players just wanted to play DnD after work to relax and didn't want to think. I think those players would have loved a campaign where they win every fight no matter what they do. The moral of the story is that all players are different and for every tip about what a DM should do, there are tons of players who would hate it if you did that. The important thing is for everyone to have fun (including the DM) and if your styles don't match, no one is "good" or "bad" at the game. It's no one's fault, it's just incompatible styles and that is ok.
Totally agree. Everything I say is my OPINION and take it with a grain of salt. What I share is what I like to do when running and in my experience what works better, but I know there are players that would hate playing in my games and players that would have loved that campaign. This is why Session 0's are important. There are techniques for fudging HP like giving the creatures a HP range and they can die anywhere in that range that seems to work well if you want something more casual.
@@DungeonMasterJosh Yeah, in my session 0, I told the players that I like intense tactical combat where you have to think and everyone was fine with it, but I skipped over having a Session 0 with the mid-campaign replacement players because another player vouched for them and I just wanted to keep things moving. Lesson learned.
@@PatrickOMulligan Maybe with another system, but running the world as a simulation doesn’t work for me in D&D because PCs get too strong too quickly and it breaks the narrative. It makes no sense for a level 1 party to struggle against a small squad of 4 guards and then a month later when they’re level 5 they can suddenly demolish 20 of them without breaking a sweat…
I get why DM's put certain challenges and decisions on rails to keep everything cohesive and fulfilling to the time they invested in planning the session, but i absolutely agree. Once the players figure out that their agency is limited that kills the true vibe of dnd which is shared story telling/writing time with the squad. In my experience that micromanage dming is the biggest culprit in scrapped campaigns. Good video, good takes, no senseless bashing.
It seems interesting to me that, in a story about player agency, you never talk about any of the player's agency to talk to the DM. This is a horror story. I would hate if my players hated what I was running, one person went "actually this sucks" and then everyone quit because NONE of the players talked to me about it. Player agency doesn't end at the character, and none of this 'advice' seems to speak to communication by PLAYERS to their DMs. We can't know what the problem is if the line is "oh these sessions are great" to immediately "I'm out."
As I said to another comment, there was some communication (from more than just me) about this but the video was focused on advice for DMs (as most of my videos are) and sharing every detail would make the video very long.
Fair enough! Thank you for taking the time to respond. I'll have to check out your other content, this had just popped up on my homepage and is the first I've seen from you :D@@DungeonMasterJosh
All good, and it's a very valid point. I advocate often for communication as it's super important. Deciding what to add to the video and what to cut is always a dilemma I have and still figuring out that balance, it looks like this time I might have kept it a little too brief.
You sinned in this: You and the players should have taken him aside and explained it to him and offer suggestions. Abandoning the DM the way you did not only make everyone lose what could become a good game, but also made you lose a potential friend.
Not trying to attack you or disagree with your main points about player agency and the combat issues, they are correct, however I will say that a Nat 20 does not equal an auto/critical success. Critical successes (rules as written) can only occur on an attack roll, so there is no such thing as a critical skill success. Obviously a 20 is a high roll and with your modifier you probably should have succeeded, but there’s plenty of angry player “I rolled a nat 20 when asking the king to give me his kingdom” or “I rolled a 20 to seduce the dragon” rpg horror stories to show why critical skill successes aren’t a rule in the game. Again, I’m not defending them or saying their dm style was good, but I also think a more valuable point to take a way here is stylistic differences. Every dm has their own style and some will mesh better or worse with players and their wants, personally I think it seems like a new(ish) dm didn’t set the expectations through miscommunication or not communicating at all during a session 0 and that would have helped avoid a lot of these issues.
I'm fully aware that a Nat 20 does not mean auto success, my issue with that specifically was why ask for a roll when the results don't matter? I'm personally am not a fan of pointless rolls which speaks to your point on stylistic differences.
@@DungeonMasterJosh just because a roll didn’t succeed, doesn’t mean the results don’t matter. An example, you try to deceive guards with a fake invitation to get into an invite only event with a DC of 22, you rolling a 7 can get an entire squad of guards on high alert and the event doubles it’s security due to that failed deception check, that same deception check when you fail with a 21 means the guards laugh it off because they find it amusing but don’t let you in. Two very different outcomes on a failure. Same thing happens with successes.
What are these? Are these... tracks? Is that a train whistle? Oh lord, we're on an railroad. No matter how many ways this is told, I will always agree with it. I do love letting the dice dictate... unless I err against the players, then I will retcon so they have a proper chance.
I hate railroad adventures. I mostly play sandbox adventures. They give freedom to the players to do whatever they want and the GM has opportunity to improve their improvisation skills.
Totally agreed, I have been a player in a similar game. Agency is what dnd is all about for me, this kind of DM style really takes me out of it. Lots of people enjoy playing games like that, it’s fun for a casual crowd, but analytic players who have dm experience (the people watching this video) can see through the illusion of agency too easily.
Yeah, I see DMs that seem to advocate for that type of style but I don't like it. I think even casual players will catch on and lose interest in a long term campaign. If you're a newer dm or running for newer players ( especially running a one shot or convention games) I see why people like this style but it's just not my favorite.
DM's are damned if they do, and damned if they don't! I'm going stick my butt out here and say this was completely the wrong way to handle this. You had a suspicion that the DM was fudging to make combat exciting, and instead of saying something to them, you tried to break the game. Not cool dude, childish and entitled. Yes, player agency is paramount, but there are also countless instances of people bitching "My DM killed my character!" And a lot of times it's only because of the dice, or a miscalculation in setting up the encounter. The DM's job is hard, players come in all different shapes, sizes and proclivities. Some players would enjoy losing a PC in a hard fought battle, others would rage quit. Players, for the love of God, do not try and intentionally sabotage your DM! If you have a problem with the game, talk to them! Maybe, just maybe he would have gone "Oh, I didn't know you felt that way, next session I'll roll everything in the open"
I think this was absolutely the correct way to handle the situation. It sounds like the players gave feedback to the DM, and nothing changed. If players aren't having fun in a particular DM's game, they have every right to just not play the game. No D&D is better than bad (or boring) D&D. I suspect this DM will learn a LOT from this experience and perhaps improve their DMing style as a result.
You're absolutely correct on EVERY point. I didn't go into detail on the communication from the players side because I wanted to keep the video shorter and focus on my point of the importance of player agency, as most of my videos are giving advice for DMs.
From what weve heard it sounds like yall acted like children. Next time speak up and dont just play your charter badley untill everyone says yeah this isnt fun. Im sure you not fulfilling your characters roll didnt help any have fun
I have quit a few campaigns because honestly most DM's are shit. They don't know rules, create stupid homebrew rules, fudge dice, fudge hp, i could go on. I have yet to find a DM that i felt is worthy of my time. SO i decided to be the DM that i wish i could find, and now i run games for players, an actual honest game of dnd, not me against them, not how i think the game should go, i let the dice decided. ACTUAL dnd. Not many people are playing that.
If you aren't having fun, or see a problem in your game, talk to your DM about it.
While the lesson you are providing is valuable, I can't help but think if that DM sees this video they are going to be crushed.
Completely agree though this video was focused more on the importance of player agency so I didn't go into everything as that would make the video pretty long, but you're absolutely correct.
This is why out of character feedback is very important.
Very true, and why listening to player feedback is important.
The whole joy of DMing is allowing players to subvert your schemes and upset your preconceptions - and the challenge is going with it.
I roll in the open and almost always don't fudge. Or on the very rare occasion i do fudge, i fudge in the open. And take feedback.
Though player agency... Player agency is very important. Treat it with respect and use it. Don't take it away hastily. But sometimes it's gotta go... Again though, in the open and with respect. But you might just fail a saving throw vs charm or something. Temp loss of agency there, in the open and with all due respect.
Sounds like you now have a good session 0 for your next adventure. I’d recommend you ask the DM for
Open rolls
Session debriefs
Play style and the usual safety tools
Honestly, the game IS communication and I strongly suggest trying open communication. There’s no other way to be happy with the game
Thanks for sharing!!
Completely agree. I rarely get to play but that's how I run my games, including what I ask other DMs to do in my open campaign on my Discord.
for open rolls, I roll in the open about 95% of the time. i believe there should be times where players should not know the outcome of a roll but i always roll in the open with people i haven't run for before. i trust my group and like to think they trust me so the enemy perception rolls during stealth are secret, social rolls are usually hidden, event rolls are secret secret etc. I believe when a group gets experienced and you become better at context clues in your descriptions and wording it really lets you keep more secrets for a more engaging experience. i never fake a roll though, what is rolled is rolled and both they and i have to deal with that, even when it means some content is getting binned. when high tension moments happen i roll in the open but use a cup to do so, hiding the die from both myself and the players until they roll, its really quite fun and terrifying for all of us.
This is why I roll openly and will gladly tell the players the stats of the npcs.
I roll in the open. Yes the characters actions have repercussions in the world
Yup! That's how I like to run it.
I feel for that DM, I try to keep all fights close and make sure the players win, HOWEVER, I always roll in the open and while I don't share exact HP, I show the enemy health bars in Roll20 which gives players a sense of how much health is left. Players can absolutely die in my campaign, especially if the party proceeds recklessly and doesn't use smart tactics. If a party blows all their resources too soon, I'm ok with letting them walk into an unwinnable fight.
Funny enough, the reason why my last campaign ended was because half the original party had to drop out due to scheduling and the replacement players had zero sense of combat tactics which led to a TPK. In the post-mortem, I learned that the replacement players just wanted to play DnD after work to relax and didn't want to think. I think those players would have loved a campaign where they win every fight no matter what they do.
The moral of the story is that all players are different and for every tip about what a DM should do, there are tons of players who would hate it if you did that. The important thing is for everyone to have fun (including the DM) and if your styles don't match, no one is "good" or "bad" at the game. It's no one's fault, it's just incompatible styles and that is ok.
Totally agree. Everything I say is my OPINION and take it with a grain of salt. What I share is what I like to do when running and in my experience what works better, but I know there are players that would hate playing in my games and players that would have loved that campaign. This is why Session 0's are important.
There are techniques for fudging HP like giving the creatures a HP range and they can die anywhere in that range that seems to work well if you want something more casual.
@@DungeonMasterJosh Yeah, in my session 0, I told the players that I like intense tactical combat where you have to think and everyone was fine with it, but I skipped over having a Session 0 with the mid-campaign replacement players because another player vouched for them and I just wanted to keep things moving.
Lesson learned.
That's a really easy thing to have happen and I've done it myself.
In WFRP balance is laughed at. Just make the encounters accurate to the world. Run it as a simulation, not a game.
@@PatrickOMulligan Maybe with another system, but running the world as a simulation doesn’t work for me in D&D because PCs get too strong too quickly and it breaks the narrative.
It makes no sense for a level 1 party to struggle against a small squad of 4 guards and then a month later when they’re level 5 they can suddenly demolish 20 of them without breaking a sweat…
Subbing because my name is also Josh.
😂
I get why DM's put certain challenges and decisions on rails to keep everything cohesive and fulfilling to the time they invested in planning the session, but i absolutely agree. Once the players figure out that their agency is limited that kills the true vibe of dnd which is shared story telling/writing time with the squad. In my experience that micromanage dming is the biggest culprit in scrapped campaigns. Good video, good takes, no senseless bashing.
It seems interesting to me that, in a story about player agency, you never talk about any of the player's agency to talk to the DM. This is a horror story. I would hate if my players hated what I was running, one person went "actually this sucks" and then everyone quit because NONE of the players talked to me about it. Player agency doesn't end at the character, and none of this 'advice' seems to speak to communication by PLAYERS to their DMs. We can't know what the problem is if the line is "oh these sessions are great" to immediately "I'm out."
As I said to another comment, there was some communication (from more than just me) about this but the video was focused on advice for DMs (as most of my videos are) and sharing every detail would make the video very long.
Fair enough! Thank you for taking the time to respond. I'll have to check out your other content, this had just popped up on my homepage and is the first I've seen from you :D@@DungeonMasterJosh
All good, and it's a very valid point. I advocate often for communication as it's super important. Deciding what to add to the video and what to cut is always a dilemma I have and still figuring out that balance, it looks like this time I might have kept it a little too brief.
You sinned in this: You and the players should have taken him aside and explained it to him and offer suggestions. Abandoning the DM the way you did not only make everyone lose what could become a good game, but also made you lose a potential friend.
Not trying to attack you or disagree with your main points about player agency and the combat issues, they are correct, however I will say that a Nat 20 does not equal an auto/critical success. Critical successes (rules as written) can only occur on an attack roll, so there is no such thing as a critical skill success. Obviously a 20 is a high roll and with your modifier you probably should have succeeded, but there’s plenty of angry player “I rolled a nat 20 when asking the king to give me his kingdom” or “I rolled a 20 to seduce the dragon” rpg horror stories to show why critical skill successes aren’t a rule in the game.
Again, I’m not defending them or saying their dm style was good, but I also think a more valuable point to take a way here is stylistic differences. Every dm has their own style and some will mesh better or worse with players and their wants, personally I think it seems like a new(ish) dm didn’t set the expectations through miscommunication or not communicating at all during a session 0 and that would have helped avoid a lot of these issues.
I'm fully aware that a Nat 20 does not mean auto success, my issue with that specifically was why ask for a roll when the results don't matter? I'm personally am not a fan of pointless rolls which speaks to your point on stylistic differences.
@@DungeonMasterJosh just because a roll didn’t succeed, doesn’t mean the results don’t matter. An example, you try to deceive guards with a fake invitation to get into an invite only event with a DC of 22, you rolling a 7 can get an entire squad of guards on high alert and the event doubles it’s security due to that failed deception check, that same deception check when you fail with a 21 means the guards laugh it off because they find it amusing but don’t let you in. Two very different outcomes on a failure. Same thing happens with successes.
What are these? Are these... tracks? Is that a train whistle? Oh lord, we're on an railroad.
No matter how many ways this is told, I will always agree with it. I do love letting the dice dictate... unless I err against the players, then I will retcon so they have a proper chance.
lol, if it's not a lightning rail I want off :p
@@DungeonMasterJosh Rollercosters are on rails and people like them.
On rails is fine, even normal. Railroading is bad, because that removes player agency.
I hate railroad adventures.
I mostly play sandbox adventures. They give freedom to the players to do whatever they want and the GM has opportunity to improve their improvisation skills.
Yup, player agency is always priority number 1!
Totally agreed, I have been a player in a similar game. Agency is what dnd is all about for me, this kind of DM style really takes me out of it.
Lots of people enjoy playing games like that, it’s fun for a casual crowd, but analytic players who have dm experience (the people watching this video) can see through the illusion of agency too easily.
Yeah, I see DMs that seem to advocate for that type of style but I don't like it. I think even casual players will catch on and lose interest in a long term campaign. If you're a newer dm or running for newer players ( especially running a one shot or convention games) I see why people like this style but it's just not my favorite.
DM's are damned if they do, and damned if they don't!
I'm going stick my butt out here and say this was completely the wrong way to handle this. You had a suspicion that the DM was fudging to make combat exciting, and instead of saying something to them, you tried to break the game. Not cool dude, childish and entitled. Yes, player agency is paramount, but there are also countless instances of people bitching "My DM killed my character!" And a lot of times it's only because of the dice, or a miscalculation in setting up the encounter. The DM's job is hard, players come in all different shapes, sizes and proclivities. Some players would enjoy losing a PC in a hard fought battle, others would rage quit.
Players, for the love of God, do not try and intentionally sabotage your DM! If you have a problem with the game, talk to them! Maybe, just maybe he would have gone "Oh, I didn't know you felt that way, next session I'll roll everything in the open"
Going to get a lot of hate for this comment, but I back you up.
I think this was absolutely the correct way to handle the situation. It sounds like the players gave feedback to the DM, and nothing changed. If players aren't having fun in a particular DM's game, they have every right to just not play the game. No D&D is better than bad (or boring) D&D. I suspect this DM will learn a LOT from this experience and perhaps improve their DMing style as a result.
You're absolutely correct on EVERY point. I didn't go into detail on the communication from the players side because I wanted to keep the video shorter and focus on my point of the importance of player agency, as most of my videos are giving advice for DMs.
From what weve heard it sounds like yall acted like children. Next time speak up and dont just play your charter badley untill everyone says yeah this isnt fun. Im sure you not fulfilling your characters roll didnt help any have fun
I have quit a few campaigns because honestly most DM's are shit. They don't know rules, create stupid homebrew rules, fudge dice, fudge hp, i could go on. I have yet to find a DM that i felt is worthy of my time. SO i decided to be the DM that i wish i could find, and now i run games for players, an actual honest game of dnd, not me against them, not how i think the game should go, i let the dice decided. ACTUAL dnd. Not many people are playing that.