Such a compelling set of three from the old rhyme, even if it has little relevance in our lives. I'd make my improvisation less blatant by replacing the candlestick maker with a green grocer, so the characters can get together a well-rounded meal. :)
Key advice here for GMs - always answer in generalities first. Q: "What is that building?" A: "That part of town has various shops in it. All the things you'd expect to find in a town of this size, plus a few local specialties." This almost always pulls the question out of them, "Is there a bowmaker?" etc.
That works very well. In this situation, if your player says what they need, you can (technically) retcon your previous ruling by saying, "well, this area IS known for the good hunting," granted, this is definitely less noticeable if it's something the characters would know through local gossip.
I give what I call a "first blush" description of just about anything in general "broad strokes" manners... Towns almost ALWAYS have a "General Mercantile" (which is our D&D technical term for General Store) where you can usually find what you're looking for (at least a "generic version" and/or get some direction about how to go about finding what you're looking for (like a specialty item)... In the "I'm looking for arrows" thing... (and because I AM a practiced archer/fletcher)... The "generic" arrow is a hunting arrow that just about any fletcher is equipped to cheaply make... These artisans sell through the General Store (something like "on commission") so you're not likely to find a specific "Bowyer/Fletcher" shop... Decent hunting bows are also available, and usually top out with just enough STR for a damage benefit... Some General Mercantiles (at towns worthy of a contingent of soldiers) may also carry and deal "war bodkins" with various benefits to flight, precision, and even damage, depending on the flavor/mood... AND for military grade bows, you likely need a technical specialist, BUT you can get a "Strength Bow" rated to "fit your arm and draw" which allows for added STR benefits up to medium range... Crossbows and Arbalests are the "civilian and military" variants for the obvious, with Arbalests firing "war quarrels" and some even requiring winches and crap to reload, making them considerably slower, but adding MASSIVE benefits to range and damage... and expenses for ammo... NOT that you're going to care especially about shattering the "cheap stuff" on impact... so long as SOME damage is generally delivered... AND yes, there WAS a "for realzies" "Pellet bow" made much like a crossbow or arbalest, but designed with the string threaded through a "striker" that would eject a stone or "bullet" held near the front of the instrument and kept in place with a small curved "spring" of metal... at least on the one I saw, and later on the version I was able to build. I've found researching into and working this kind of technical knowledge into the Game is worth it for the variety. Players get to "find" impressive weapons and think about getting them enchanted for things other than "Instant X-monster destruction" and I have something for the economy to eat up some of that treasure everyone's so excited to find and stockpile... and then whine about not having to spend any of it. In any case... Basic History 101... or maybe(?) 202 stuff so grab at it... Enjoy... AND it doesn't usually take too long for Players to figure my "terminology" (or code... haha) out so they ask the best relevant questions as we go. ;o)
I usually put some kind of bazaar or marketplace in my towns. Where you'd find whatever your heart desires. Including gnomish hookers or elven drug dealers.
This is pretty common with new players that have a "video game mentality" they assume that things are fixed beyond their control and don't usually understand the extend to which the GM can bend the world for the story
That's very possible but I think well programmed adventure type games for example have tried to steer players better. I'm a point and click adventure fan and things like pixel hunting and combo trying are possibly the 2 biggest annoyances but like I say there's stuff programmers have done to minimise those frustrations...so yeah there is very likely a mentality of try everything by rote
I regularly roleplay with two guys who are "mechanics first" when it comes to character design. One is highly adept at growing his character beyond their gear and abilities, the other not so much. Personally, reading through a shopping catalog is tedious AF, and I'm willing most of the time to choose skills that make sense narratively rather than mechanically. These differences are usually an issue during character creation, and in the first couple of sessions, while they're test driving their characters when I'm more concerned about keeping the story moving.
"What's this one?" - Tavern "What's this one?" - Headshop "What's this one?" - Sex Toy Store "What's this one?" - Your character's brutal and irreversible death if this continues.
The ring turning the bullets into full-sized cannonballs wouldn't even work, either the cannonball gets its full mass back and it just falls to the floor, or it doesn't get its mass back and now it's basically wiffleball.
Yes! The point you made about players concealing their intentions when asking questions in order have a “gotcha” moment really annoys me as a GM. I always ask, “What are you going for here?” When I suspect this is happening and they usually respond honestly, but I’ve had players literally say, “Don’t worry about it” when I ask that. I respond with, “If you’re coming up with a plan, it’s better to let me in on it because it gives me more time to think about how it COULD work rather than make a snap judgment and say it doesn’t work.” Hell, I’ve had players ask tons of specific questions about the enemies and environment, but they don’t let me in on what they have planned. They go to cast this cool spell after wasting time setting this plan up and all I have to say is, “Dude, that spell requires a humanoid target and these enemies aren’t humanoid. Also, it’s a 1 minute casting time, not something you can cast in one action.” If he just asked if his plan would work I would've pointed out the issues with it before he wasted our time and his turn.
This is the reason why I asked my DM if it was possible if a dwarf blacksmith and a human fighter could invent the Barrett M82. Their response was yes BUT only if we could logically explain how we would do it.
This^ so much! They think if I don't know the plan then they can "outsmart" me and win, when all they're really doing is trying to cheat the "natural laws" in the game
Exactly! I love seeing my players come up with clever strategies and plan stuff in and out of game. Sometimes I take part in it as their NPC ally/allies, other times I just let them discuss and listen in. It's baffling, exciting, fun, to hear what ideas they come up with and it often changes the course or outcome of the story. I consider it absolutely necessary to always be informed of my players' plans, NOT so I can ruin their plans, but so I know what they're coming up with and can plan accordingly/adjust on my end, occasionally give a hint (f.e. when they're stuck, when a plan is bound to fail or too game-breaking) and essentialy work on how the story's gonna continue WITH my players.
I get how the PCs and the GM are often, by simple design of RPG systems, on opposite sides of a conflict. But I really don't go along with adversarial PC/GM relationships. I've played in games where the GM genuinely felt that it was an "Me vs Them" contest...which of course the PCs could never win. Holy shit that's not fun.
"You use the spell slot and commence casting. I'll let you know when it is complete." Combat starts and ends... Player who has the Wizard: "Can I do something now?" "No, you're still casting that spell."
I had a modern RPG game, but the plot took a turn as they got transported to 1880 in Texas. The group set about trying to get their footing and one of my players spent about 30 minutes going around town buying random components with vague terms (all the gadgety metal things in this store, barb wire here, etc) and I asked him, "You can ask people in town for specific things if you want them." Didn't go along with that. Finally he got back to his hotel room (their current base of operations at that point) and then told me he was going to try to build an electric generator. His PC was a big computer guy and he had such a heavy tech set that it would not be practical in 1880. I looked at him and said, "Why didn't you say that 30 minutes ago?" He thought I would have said no. I looked at him and said, "The town has electric lighting along Main Street, the hotel has electricity in the main room downstairs, had you said something you could have saved yourself a lot of time and would likely have been able to tap into that power source." He was a bit put off...
And then he had the balls to argue with me about municipal power grids not being a thing and I said the street has power, a few buildings along the main drag have power. Not a grid. And why was he arguing when it made it easier for his PC? Because he thought he was correct. Not the DM who enjoys history and who researched the hell out of the time and period.
@@tkbeveridge That seems like a reasonable answer to the question. Grids didn't just materialize out of nowhere, or get built in complete blocks at a time! Of course the Main Street in every city in the country was the first one lit up, and the more successful businesses along Main Street would be the first to have electricity! Likewise, we used to have these things called "Telegram Offices", one per town, with one line stringing it to the next town, where you could go and pay by the word to have short messages sent!
Even if it was a breechloader, when you fired your very first shot the leading edge of the ball would trip the anti-magic while the bulk of the projectile was still in the barrel and behind the ring. Unless there was a couple millisecond delay on the dispel effect your weapon would resemble Elmer Fudd's after Bugs jammed his finger in the barrel.
I assume you would actively be able to take it on and off or it wouldn't work for the reasons you describe. There's other comments who go into how it wouldn't work even if it did get into the barrel, so I won't repeat those at length here. But yeah, I can't see it working in so many angles; it's actually a really good example of "talk to the GM", because as a GM, I'd know that they want something but it wouldn't work the way they expect it to, so a different solution might come about... Instead, either the gun/barrel blows up or the cannonball lands at the player's feet... I'm sure a magical solution could work, if done properly, but in terms of 3.5E, which is what I assume they were playing, what the player described doesn't work ten ways from Sunday...
The issue I saw, was the mass of the cannonballs. Does the shrink spell reduce the mass as well? If not, you have a musket ball that weighs as much as a cannonball. If your musket is powerful enough to fire a ball that massive without exploding, why use the dispel magic ring at all when you essentially have a armour piercing railgun at that point. If it does indeed reduce the mass, than when it passed though the dispel field, the returning mass would increase the wight and the force applied by the rifle would be insufficient to propel it very far. Personally, I like the visual idea of someone trying this, and firing the cannonball about a foot, onto their buddy’s foot.
@@Crow.Author Great visualisation! I mean, "technically" if you have magic in the world, it messes with basic laws of physics so you might excuse this but - in essence - the charge propelling a musketball doesn't exert enough energy to propel a cannon ball. 🙂
It's when it's intentional that gets me the most. Everyone loves getting that "Woah, what?!" moment, but I just prefer my players let me in on it, even if it's via text. One of the worst feelings I've experienced as a GM is when someone reveals their master plan and I can see how excited they are, but they've read a rule wrong or they forgot about a key detail, and I get stuck feeling like the fun police. I feel like this video hit the nail on the head. Just tell me what you want and I'm more than happy to help. For me, it's so much more fun and rewarding to help them get that big moment they're looking for, rather than worrying about taking away someone's fun or just sitting with an uncomfortable feeling like the player is trying to pull one over on me or the game.
Well, we should also remember that the game rules are really more like guidelines anyways and sometimes I will bend (or even break) a rule if it leads to something really cool or funny.
@@dauchande Oh absolutely. I do the same thing and much prefer the rule of cool before all else. It's usually only when it would set a precedent moving forward where I look at rules more closely.
I see this in combat. Players asking distance questions and mechanics to try to figure out if they can do a cool thing rather than just say the cool thing they want to do. I make it a major point in Session 0, and reminders throughout the campaign that I am not the enemy. "I want you to do cool stuff, so tell me what that is so we can figure out a way for you to do it".
Damn, I've never thought about this...I will definitely keep that in mind next time someone asks "How far am I away?" or "What direction are they facing?" or something of that sort.
Vice versa, a DM was telling me that some of my tricks and traps were awful... "Why would you do that to the players?" He asked... It's not ME doing this... It's the monsters... The monsters made the clever trap, the lich his his phylactery in the robe of invisibility (hey good idea), etc. It's not me that's doing this and I feel players enjoy the experience and challenges
@11:00 Re: "will that work" I had a GM who always said "you can try anything" but if we tried anything remotely creative he seemed to take joy in then having it blow up in our faces to the point no one ever wanted to think outside the box at all anymore. So hidden intentions can be adversarial on either side.
If it was something rather outlandish, and they would have time to prepare, I would ask the player to roll an appropriate check - Arcana, Investigation, History, perhaps Nature or Medicine, depending on what they're trying to do - to see if they find something on if this has been tried before. In a high magic setting I can totally imagine thesis papers like "Failed magical experiments and what we can learn from them". As a DM, not every idea should be allowed or rejected outright, and "your character has no idea if this will work" can be a valid response. Just don't go into it with the mindset of "how can I f*** the group over", either.
Players asking a series of small leading questions to create a "gotcha" moment are in a way some of the most disruptive players around. They train the GM to say "no" because the GM will be worried about what they'll end up allowing, and this just creates a bad time for everyone.
Legit I'm a DM, and in another game there's a GM who just doesn't trust me on any request and I don't even try to have the system or such. "No if I let you you'll abuse it you'll find some way to min max it because you know the system more." I can't even try meanwhile his other players get a pass on various weird things... Feels bad
Random thought, if you see it happening and want to add a layer of verisimilitude, have the town guard come up and say, “adventurer, you seem lost. Is there some place you are looking for?” If they answer, the town guard can point them in the right direction. If you think the town guard wouldn’t know, doesn’t matter, you now know as the GM and can set up something appropriate or accordingly
I literally just sent this to all my players. We had a big discussion about a week back about how everyone was enjoying the game and several players admitted that there were things that they were wishing was included or I would lean into more. I will admit I was really frustrated and I asked them why nobody told me until that moment considering we had been playing for a month or two at this point? The players sort of just had blank stares as if they didn't realize that was acceptable or something so, even though we had a very thoughtful and thorough discussion, I sent my players this video to reinforce everything we talked about since, maybe they will trust somebody on the internet over their DM XD
Being honest with your dm saves so much time. Like in roleplay when I'm trying to pry information out a npc often I'll ask my DM OoC "am i getting anywhere here?" and he'll either be like "lets keep going and find out what u can get" or he'll be like "that guys just not gonna give up that information no matter how hard you try". I'd rather be told "no" than to waste my time with with a rube goldberg machine that hes gonna shut down anyway
The last big 4e D&D campaign I played in opened with the DM asking everyone what their PC's goal in life was. Three of the people insisted on keeping it secret from the rest of us and I never did find out what they were after. Two others wanted the usual fame, glory, immeasurable wealth and a peaceful retirement together in a demiplane of their own, which they accomplished around mid-epic tier (although the dimensional seed they planted in the Feywild took a few levels to mature so they kept adventuring for a bit while they waited). Me, my fighter wanted to restore his family's fortunes by bringing home a new mountain full of ore from the Elemental Chaos, because overreaching based on Dwarven fairy tales is hilarious. Damned if the GM didn't build the back half of epic tier around the party and our allies fighting an efreeti rebel who'd tamed a living mountain and was planning to breach the walls of the City of Brass with it. We wound up diverting the thing so it landed in an undead-infested swamp within sight of the mined-out mountain my PC had been raised in - well, under. Bit hard on the not-undead part of the wetlands ecology, but getting mired in the swamp slowed it down long enough for the different physics of the Prime Material to take over and turn it to (relatively) lifeless rock. Mission accomplished, and my guy got to quit adventuring to go help the relatives move in to their new (ahem) digs. Would not have happened in a billion years if I hadn't put the seed of the (batshit crazy) idea into the GM's head way back in session zero. So yeah, talk to your GM, even when you don't expect to get what you want. Inspiration comes from dumb ideas sometimes. That was a good few years run, haven't had such a steady group since then.
I knew I recognized that map! Our long running campaign started with Secret of Bone Hill. We call it the Restenford game. The hiding of intentions from the GM is one I try to combat by being fair. I want my players to do something cool/creative, just because I know it's coming doesn't mean I'm going to ruin it so I can "win".
Many years ago, the GM I was playing under was a bit adversarial (blame it on his roommates who were also players and set an adversarial tone in their play. Well, at the culmination of the campaign, we were getting ready to raid the home of his version of Tiamat. We knew, from previous adventure arcs, that he was going to use his knowledge of our skills, spells and equipped items to tailor the fight to make us lose. So, as our characters were sleeping in a cave to rest up for the fight, we players communicated between sessions and swapped around which character had which major items, and changed our battle plans on that basis. - Next session, we entered the lair of "not-Tiamat" and her top ancient chromatic dragons. We killed three of the five ancients and landed the killing blow on "not-Tiamat" in (if I recall) about 5 or 6 rounds. We got a "bright flash of light" and were returned to our home city, not knowing if the killing blow ever landed or not. - edit: We later explained why we switched items around, and I think that discussion really helped us all be better players and GMs after that.
I love it when a player asks an NPC "what do you got to sell me?" which is how I hear them asking me the GM "what does he got?" That is a role-play rabbit hole that sometimes leads to good stories.
As long time GM I always frame my actions with specifically mentioned end-goal to anyone who runs game for me. It really helps them making the game better for me.
Yea I am lucky that I only play with friends or friends of friends, so there is some base level of understanding in every group I play or GM. Being clear with your intentions or asking about them when in doubt is one of the first behaviours we all learned.
Same. I learned it first from Burning Wheel, and now when I play I first state what my character tries to achieve, and then how they go about it. It makes it much easier for the GM.
I HATED as a GM, when my player refused to tell me or other players his goal. It was never even something that we would have any reason to sabotage... I believe it was something he took from his previous games. It was really awfull, because I could not help him get his goal and he was frustrated, because his plans did not work as he did not ask for enough details....
I have a long time friend who is usually a player in my games. We've played together for _years_ now, with a few lengthy breaks. Since around 2005. And only recently have I gotten him to finally let up on this "don't trust the GM" mentality. He would usually do everything he could to make what I considered a "boring" character. No flaws. No notable back story. No real wants or desires or history (but maybe a vague goal like "get rich"). He'd avoid having any sort of relatives or mentors or social connections established for his characters, no attachments to any location or pre-existing club/organization/career and so on. Blank slates, in many respects. For a long time I just didn't get it -- I'd happily open up my characters to all kinds of troubles and complications. He did this because before we ever played together he had (in the military) played a lot of D&D with a DM who apparently would use any and every sort of thing like that against the players so that the DM could "win" in a blatantly antagonistic fashion. And the games were all very much oriented around tactical combat situations (military, after all) so the idea of flawed characters was considered "bad". I'm actually more surprised my friend still wanted to play at all after that experience.
Much like we have animal shelters that work with abused/traumatised animals to help them overcome their past before going to loving homes, I feel like we need the same for players (and GMs) that have come from adversarial tables to help them adjust to cooperative tables.
Some people are just secretive &/or antagonistic by nature when playing RPGs. Their sneaky, suspicious, competitive side comes out. It drives me crazy, but I guess they can't help the tendency.
@@Caitlin_TheGreat If you dont mind me asking you, what are you doing now after knowing why your friend made blank slate characters due to past experience, aside from continuing to play with them of course (if its the case)?
Y'know, this is actually one of my favorite parts of the Scion system; in that game, XP gain is tied heavily to fulfilling "Deeds", which come in 3 forms. There's the band deed (basically, what the players as a group want to accomplish), a long term deed, which is more like a character arc, and a short term deed, which is a single, simple goal that can typically be done in a session. It's even outright written that it can be a specific type of scene that the player wants. It forces a player to give the GM specific things that they *want* to do, and helps mitigate this problem.
[05:16] "Some folks are so afrait to say what they want, that the get mad at others when they say what they want and even go length to shut them down." That's my addition to Madonna's Quote based on mypersonal experiance. You know, if I had a Town of houses or a library of books and only a few of them named at all, I do only minimal work to add some more details when asked directly. Instead after the 5ft house or book I would address a third player and have them decide what is in there. If the one player keeps asking I redirect the question to each other player on the table one-by-one up to the asking player at last. This way everyone can get involved in the worldbuilding. And the asking player might get a hint that, if he keeps asking, he himself is forced to answer. That's also what I want to teach players: storytelling games are a collaborative effort. [14:17] "Maybe they mentioned a long time back...remind your gamemaster...highly skilled at forgetting things." Tell me if you want to hear my story of the "Kackstein".
This has me realize if I make a town where I do want to know where everything is and it’s all established, I should make pre-established Flex Areas. Like for shops, have a bazaar that can slot in random things they players want that I’d have no issue offering.
saying what you want out of character is such a valuable skill I encourage at my table. As a player for other gms, or in stories? Too often there can be a mentality of not in character, spoils the game. The meta can facilitate the play. "I am looking for some place to ___" Or "I want to diplomacy the guards but.." "What do you say" "Uh... I want to compliment the uniform?" Then fail because the player themself is shy. As a player, if there is something needed, I will tell the GM before or after game session so can work it into their narrative and not caught off guard. The player is not the character. If I am unsure how to roleplay cause stumped just a mental lock or it being tedious? I will tell the GM my intent. Two sessions ago in our Pathfinder? We encountered some hags, but resources were slim. So I wanted to negotiate our safety. There was roleplay, but it was going on since I didnt want to just meta knowledge hags that my character only just met and didnt know much about. So after a bit of awkward roleplay banter? I said to DM that I wanted to explain how X will solve Y and just want to try and reach an accord for safe passage. We made rolls and the GM gave a narrative on how I was able to do what I was having trouble with for roleplay.
For sure and I think you also hit on some other advice that's really important for players amd GMs to know: Not every player has to be an actor and also as you said players are not their characters. There is always gonna be a dissonance. Be it a difference of knowledge, behaviour or ideals. There is nothing wrong with talking OOC. It's a game to have fun, not a performance for an audience.
Years ago I power gamed a 3.5e fast talking con man. The DM normal starts us out at 4th level so I multi class Aristocrat1/rogue1/expert1/bard1 with diplomacy/bluff at 16 ranks each. Every social encounter where I could take 10 was smooth running, I was the most popular new guy in town. When I had to roll to talk to nobles or muscle just looking to rough someone up, IF a roll came up as an 8 on d20 it was a high roll ! Way too many 2-5, and 1's were common as h3ll ! Along with felling my dexterity/balance check of tripping over my own feet as I walk up and greet important people. On one hand that PC was built with a Silver Tongue, but all the rolls ended up of having him be a stuttering clucks. He was meant to become a powerful merchant lord, but all the dice rolls had him as a court jester greeting visitors and haggling over chicken eggs. As a joke my game shop would hand out index cards with 20th-level PC with stats of 25 across the board with +5 equipment. Then see how much the dice hates that PC during play. Hope you have a good weekend, and have fun gaming.
I find that many players vastly overestimate the amount of detail GM's pre-prepare. I know for myself that I _intentionally_ leave things that don't _need_ to be defined, undefined. Just get the broad strokes and add detail only when needed. But players tend to assume that you've crafted this simulation of an entire world in your head before the campaign even started. I mean, it's flattering, but no. I tend to favor some kind of structure for the beginning of a campaign but, once the players get their feet under them, what's in the wider world is going to be very dependent upon what they _want_ to be in the wider world.
Eh. Idk it depends on the situation. Sometimes I write 30+ pages and it’s basically an entire prewritten scenario or sometimes it’s not even a page. I find for mysteries with a lot of investigation and clues and characters I tend to prepare a lot more before hand. I’m also a big lore guy and handout guy so those can take a lot of prep work beforehand. But on the other hand, I enjoy having improve sessions too to avoid my players (I only play with a small group of same folks each time) getting too familiar with my literary formulas and style.
In my first game I gmd (now forever gm) I went with the butcher, baker, candlestick maker joke. The candlestick maker became a big deal because I created candle magic and to this day my players (no matter the game) always ask if they can find a candle magic crafter in town.
3.5e " Tomb & Blood," handbook for wizards and sorcerers, Prestige class: something about Candle magic functioning with potions with meta magic feats lighting off two spells at once.
Ya. Was going to DM a campaign a while back. The general hook was a new city was being built and needed workers to help out. My first ask of my players were "I want you to bring in characters who still want to adventure and quest. Not set up a shop or take up an intercity job. Or, at least, if they do want to set up a shop, understand that they might get what they wish, but, for the sake of the game, we might have to turn that PC into an NPC." The people I was pitching this to gave me 3 brand new characters they had been working on, two of them wanted to set up a tavern and an Inn. Wanted to slam my head against the wall. Never got around to finishing the planning of that campaign.
I am a bit unsure here. I feel that you give a fine hook (a new city was being built and needed workers to help out) that really opens up for a versatile growth campaign. As I read it, then that city is the world the campaign takes place in. Thus I feel it to be obvious that the characters are better off connecting themselves with that city someway or another. What is a bit weak is telling them what not to do. (Not set up a shop or take up an intercity job.) *Not* is generally a bad word, better is to tell what to instead. (Better to "include" than to "exclude") Technically Taverns / Inns are neither shops nor intercity jobs, thus fair game. And I think it should not be that difficult to get all 3 together about something along that tavern/inn line. If you were aiming for something more specific... What do I know? A mansion? A museum? A ZOO? A Space Port? Then I think you should have presented those options (As "include" list.) They have anchored themselves in the city. (Thus you know they will stay in your world. - No need to figure out ways to prevent them from leaving it.) Your players have that way given you a "power base" ready to use. (You do not need to make one for them!) What do they need to make it grow? What people do they meet? You have it, something that can give an almost endless stream of adventures and quests. While, as the story progresses, they can see the result of their efforts as their place expands and advances!
@@larsdahl5528 Short answer. Because I’m a new DM, so asking for a simple, proactive player goal would save me a ton of mistakes, stress, and bending to try to get my ideas and hooks to entice rooted people. It’s easier to ambush players with plot hooks and the mysteries I had planned on the road rather than in the city. As, most of the greater plots I had planned necessitated them being out in the fields, learning, making connections, and discovering ruins and lost sanctums. Much like how the Curse of Strahd requests a person be a Cleric or Paladin, I ask for something far more open that the adventurers want to make a living adventuring. They’ll be given a home, maybe even a luxurious one if things go well, but I needed them doing jobs both in and outside the city, not worrying about running an inn. After all. You wouldn’t easily be interested in solving a riddle two towns over if your livelihood and income is tied up in running a business (by themselves, initially). To prevent this kind of forcing on my part when I’m still learning, I requested this.
@@Nickle_King Sound like you started out too ambitious. For beginners, I will say try out GM-ing a few one-shot scenarios, before taking on running a campaign. For everything, it is best to start out small, even when having a lot of theoretical knowledge. It is about building up experience. That experience brings the confidence to go on with the more advanced stuff. And make it easy for yourself; proper tools make things easier. Here I will say: Go for an RPG system that does support role-play. Just because the experienced handyman can hit a nail properly with many tools, it is still better for a beginner to start out with some sort of hammer.
Good tips. I'm a fan of narrative RPGs as they tend to enforce this kind of communication naturally - since the mechanics have to follow from the scene framing. That cannonball example drives me a little loopy - given conservation of momentum the cannonball would immediately fall at the feet of the firer!
As a non-veteran DM I can say the presence of chandeliers/ropes/vines/etc in a room has a direct correlation to players asking if there are such objects in said room. Is that wrong? I don't think so.
I'm pretty sure Erol Flynn's career as the original swashbuckling action hero can be directly correlated with the presence of chandeliers! Plus, it makes for good set-dressing! Source: I am a former "pirate ship campaign" DM . :D
If you actually mention that sort of detail before being asked you inevitably create a Chekov's Chandelier. Once its existence is established, a chandelier *must* be swung upon. :)
I've only been a DM for 8 years so take what you will. But when you full an area with stuff to interact with, make sure the enemies use some stuff too. Cover, shape stone on a pillar or statue to make it fall, a boss using a telekinesis lair action to break all the mirrors in the room damaging anyone within 10 feet of one, shocking grasp on a puddle of water. Your players will start getting creative with your environment as well.
Great video - I'd like to suggest something similar regarding combat. Something I often see is players playing 20 questions during combat when it's their turn to go as opposed to just stating what they want to do. This is a behavior that brings combat to a crawl. And, it is often coupled with the behavior of staring at one's character sheet for the answer. example - "So I'm in melee range of this guy." - Yes "Is there enough room to pass by him?" - Yes "Will he get an attack of opportunity?" - Yes. "Where are all the other bad guys?" - Look at the map. "Is the one by the lever facing me?" - Not directly. "Will he see me if I try to run by him?" - Maybe. "Will he get a chance for an opportunity attack?" - Maybe. "Okay, is the door behind me locked?" - You don't know. "If I look at it can I tell?" - Probably not during combat. "Could I push the guy in front of me down the stairs." - You could try. "Would that be my action or a bonus action?" - An action, part of your attack. "Ok, but I could just run by him?" - That would probably work. "So the lever by the door, is it up or down?" - Up. "How far away is the lever?" Close enough to run to. "So I can pull it down on the same turn I run over there?" - Yes, that would be your action at the end of the move. Etc. etc. Each question followed by the player looking at their character sheet or counting grid squares. Even worse if we're playing theater of the mind. All this instead of saying, "I want to run by the guy in front of me and pull the lever." Ok, he gets an opportunity attack, but you can do that. I often find myself interrupting the game of 20 questions by saying, "Just tell me what you want to do." -- Sometimes the cause is inexperience with the system, or taking "push button" habits from 5e to other games (while they look for the right button to push. But some players must know i the thing they want to do will work before they do it and are unwilling to accept any element of chaos in combat. Would lvoe a video about players "Saying what they want" in combat.
I think the "Aha!" moments from players are often fostered by GMs who hear the player's plans and then cause them to fail, like they change situations to counter the plans or make npcs act as if they know what the players are trying to do, or just flat out have the plan not work. Nothing is worse than coming up with a cunning plan and then having it fail through no actual rolling, but rather the situation suddenly being different simply to counter the plan. One example from a game was our rogue sneaking off to gather intel on some enemies, and being clever about it by using treetops to stay up out of sight. She had to roll stealth, at which she excelled, and rolled between 19 to 26 each time. However the bad guys always spotted her. Every time. It was incredibly frustrating, since it didn't feel like they were rolling well, but rather the DM just wanted them to get spotted because they had a specific solution in mind. You feel like, "why bother making plans if they're never going to work?"
Yes, it seems surprising that if we see role-playing as a communication sport, then many fail at communication! I think... Due to I have many years experience... that there are people in the hobby who are used to withhold information, as they are in reality war-gamers and thus know that the less they let the enemy know, the better off they are! Yes, it is tough for many to admit, but: There are painfully many wargamers who claim they are role-playing.
@@larsdahl5528 I get your point, but I think your concept is too binary. There is a lot of reasons people don't communicate, being a war gamer is a very minor one. Most of them are far more likely to be related to out of game things, like personality type and personal history, this particularly applies to new groups. Trust is hard, being laughed at hurts and it's easy to get scared in a social situation. Not everyone is an over sharing extrovert.
Great video. As a GM I've learned to ask, "What is your character trying to accomplish?" This can cut down on the requests for specific rolls, and helps me to prepare success and fail conditions prior to the roll.
I feel the goal is changing: At first, the goal is to get an overall impression of the village. Later, the goal changes to finding a fletcher. I sense a collision of interests: GM wants to give a fine map to give a quick overview of the village. PC sees no describing text anywhere, and thus starts the tedious question sequence. In short: I think the map is counterproductive, in that it gives the impression that there is something more important (handout emphasis) to this village.
Drives me nuts that it takes me less than one round to find a problem with the cannon rifle: antimagic doesn't dispel ongoing spells, it suppresses them. The cannonball starts to return to normal size for the instant it's passing through the ring, then resumes being bullet-sized.
That is why my first question as GM is always what the player wants to get out of the character and do not assume things. The example I usually give why I do this is a hardboiled detective in a Cthulhu game, since maybe the player wants to play that because they want indeed be investigative, but there is also the chance that the player just wants to play the tough loner guy but is not really interested in solving mysteries but want to punch stuff instead. Also, playing in a conflict resolution way of using dice rolls also lead to better communication over a task resolution style game, since it automatically always included the goal of a cause of action and doesn't look at every single step along the way.
That's why in call of cthulu, they say to describe intent instead of action when declaring a roll. They give an example that if everyone deacribes actions instead of intent that it can just spiral out of control because the dice are left out. "I swing my sword! I freeze the sword! Yeah, well I actually set the sword on fire! I break the sword! Foiled again? I'll just punch you!" And on, and on, and on... Great rule that I use all the time to deal with the problems you described in this video, along with some good old fashioned talking! "I'm the GM, you can trust me, get to the point, and tell me what you want. Don't dilly dally! If you don't know what you want either, that's fine! But make it clear that you have no idea what you're going for either! You can trust that I, the GM will make sure you have a great time, and that what you do results in something interesting." Great video as always! It's nice to finally see a video about this topic! It was something I knew others suffered from because of experience but always had a naghing feeling that it was just me. Hopefully this increases awareness about this problem for GM's and players alike.
ED: You see a well groomed garden. In the middle, on a small hill, you see a gazebo. ERIC: A gazebo? What color is it? ED: [pause] It's white, Eric. ERIC: How far away is it? ED: About 50 yards. ERIC: How big is it? ED: [pause] It's about 30 ft across, 15 ft high, with a pointed top. ERIC: I use my sword to detect good on it. ED: It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. ERIC: [pause] I call out to it. ED: It won't answer. It's a gazebo. ERIC: [pause] I sheathe my sword and draw my bow and arrows. Does it respond in any way? ED: No, Eric, it's a gazebo! ERIC: I shoot it with my bow. [roll to hit] What happened? ED: There is now a gazebo with an arrow sticking out of it. ERIC: [pause] Wasn't it wounded? ED: OF COURSE NOT, ERIC! IT'S A GAZEBO! ERIC: [whimper] But that was a +3 arrow! ED: It's a gazebo, Eric, a GAZEBO! If you really want to try to destroy it, you could try to chop it with an axe, I suppose, or you could try to burn it, but I don't know why anybody would even try. It's a @#$%!! gazebo! ERIC: [long pause. He has no axe or fire spells.] I run away. ED: [thoroughly frustrated] It's too late. You've awakened the gazebo. It catches you and eats you. ERIC: [reaching for his dice] Maybe I'll roll up a fire-using mage so I can avenge my Paladin.
Something I've found is this tendency for players to feel like the game is something the GM gives them, rather than something they have a creative stake in, particularly this sense that although they have hopes of something they'd like to happen, that if they simply *ask* for it rather than the GM guessing correctly what they want, that it somehow *doesn't count* Hard mindset to break. And here in NZ there's the problem that players don't want to make a fuss. Ask them at the outset what they want, and you'll get a chorus of "Yeah, nah, I'm good with anything eh", but as soon as you hand them a buyer's guide of magic items and large objects (elephants, airships, etc.) they'll enthusiastically start asking if the campaign can contain this or that in it. Self-defeating mindsets, everywhere
I loved your point towards the end was on point! Our best adventures are when players tell me "I want a magic belt" or "I want to find my parents." Then I can tailor a few sessions around that. It's GM GOLD!!!!! Thanks for all your videos, Seth. you're the best.
In The Car Post Game: my last group was notorious for not telling the GM anything. After each session the GM was obsessive about asking for feedback (but mostly would get sore about unfavorable news and only really wanted praise) and my compatriots would only say "it's good" or "I had fun". But then I had to listen to them moan for the next half-hour on the ride home about EVERYTHING! From bad calls to misunderstanding their characters they had plenty to say but never to his face. I got tired of it and decided to actually give feedback for my character and experience (making sure it wasn't "criticism" but more of a "clearing up some misunderstandings). It wasn't long before my character was given so much more attention because I spoke up. The GM had a lot of inspiration from my end and I had a lot of options going forward. The whole group improved slowly after that but I did get stuck as the mouthpiece for us players in spite of my efforts to teach them to open their own mouths. One whole campaign started glorious! The GM stated he wanted it to be high fantasy exploration based: travelling the world. So I made a sea faring dwarf with a personal beef with pirates. I had an absolute BLAST for the first chapter because I communicated with him. I had so much fun I felt I had taken the lion's share of the attention so I said he should focus on someone else's story for the next leg..... ...he chose the least communicative player and the game damn near died. It slowed to a crawl and Friday became a chore.
I like how Shadowrun allows players to make their own contacts so if they want something, they can use their own contacts to get what they need. A mage might know a talismonger, a sniper might know a weapon dealer, and the face might know someone good at making fake IDs.
Hey, this is a really important issue for me and thank you very much for making this video. For me this was not a little thing, this was a group shattering thing. A player of mine decided without telling anyone in the group that he will not ever "whine to the GM". Which in the end translated into "not communicating with the DM". This was a Dark Heresy 2nd edition game. At the beginning of the campaign I only noticed that even though I expressively told them to tell me any issues they have, work with me on their characters and if there's anything they'd like to do or achieve that isn't in 2nd ed, but maybe in previous ones, approach me, even after all this he was less engaged than the others. I tried to put in hooks for their character, but they never seemed to bite, so gradually I started to reach out to them even less so, because I just didn't see the point and thought they were doing okay. This was mostly because in this campaign I started using a LOT of advices from GMs like Matt Mercer, Matt Coleville and You Seth and ALL the other players LOVED it and told me multiple times that this was the best campaign we ever had. The first real open world campaign instead of the singular story driven, railroady ones our group made before. All were happy. Or so I thought. After a year or so I started to notice more and more of these "A-HA" moments, grumpiness and some passive aggression from this player. I knew they didn't agree with me houseruling the game (they were very much of a RAW type of person), but after another houserule suggestion, they sent everyone a long, aggressive letter, about how I, the GM, am ruining everything. Everyone was shocked, I felt broken. Some players came to defend me, but we settled down and I agreed to tweak the system less and we moved on. But the aggressive behaviour kept coming and only after I specifically asked them "do you have a problem with me" did they say "YES". It turned out there were multiple issues in the background, which I didn't know anything about at all, like me creating random loots for the party and he thought that I am specifically not giving them anything. Or me granting the others custom talent (which I told them about at the beginning). So thanks to my suggestion, we sat down 1-on-1, talked a whole day, I said sorry and explained myself. It thought we were good. I was wrong... I think you see where this is going. There were still issues everytime we tried to solve the previous ones. After about a year of the first incident, they left, another one followed because he felt the atmosphere was just bad and they hadn't been enjoying the game for months at that point. The group fell apart. Now I'm not saying I'm not at fault at all, probably should have recognised things beforehand or tried to talk to them more. But I just still can't understand how the group went from "best campaign" to "totally broken" in one year, while all I had were good intentions and openness and literally thousands of hours put into the campaign. Say what you want. It is REALLY important to communicate.
Honestly after the guy wrote that letter you should have thrown him out. Like, I understand not wanting to cause a scene or confront people, but anyone who's willing to resort to something like that BEFORE ever actually speaking to you isn't someone you should have at your table, or...probably even be friends with outside the game either. Some people are not worth it and if you don't deal with that, it can start hurting the rest of the group too. I'm not trying to say that it's all your fault or anything, who knows what MIGHT have happened, after all...and hindsight is 20/20. But sometimes trying to be the nice guy for too long causes more harm than it avoids. Trust me. Sometimes "please don't come back" is the only answer, even if it really really sucks to ever say that to someone.
More than anything else the "gotcha" version of this problem bothers me. Certain spells in D&D seem especially prone to this. "What kind of weapon is the barbarian warlord weilding?" "Well, like I said, it's a greataxe." "What kind of handle does it have?" "Well I suppose it's made of some wicked looking dragon bone from a kill their father's father made long ago." "Oh, so Heat Metal won't work on it then?" "Why the hell didn't you start with that? Just say 'will Heat Metal work on their weapon next time!'" Don't back me into a corner where I might nullify your spell because you thought you'd trick me into saying the weapons handle is made of metal. It will either work or it won't, I'm not here to be your adversary, the villains are!
Gotta say Seth missed the third reason for the "Gotcha" thing... With some GM's there's a sub-plot to the Game, and Players who can surprise them from time to time can win stuff in-game... I've known quite a few... It's just a subtler layer of "mental chess" involved as the regular game carries on... Plots don't inherently change, and you CAN be "the big dumb stereotypical barbarian" at absolutely ZERO deficit... BUT manage the gag or bit that shocks the GM into wide-eyed silence and earn "the face" and you can get a little something in-game... usually worth no more than a cheesy +1 something or other flashy, but something... screw it up (like getting "caught") and it's nothing worse than a denial and call-out... something like "Yeah, don't think for a moment that I can't see you slowly constructing Batman in my D&D setting mid-game." ..."Damn... I tried, guys." It kind of depends on the general "flavor" of the Game and the "Play Style" of the GM. BUT a solid group of Players CAN have a perfectly healthy Game of "Gotcha" with their GM and still carry on the Campaigns. It takes a gift for subtlety and keeping it to an agreeable layer of "sub-plot"... That's all. Whatever "styles" you want to mix or match at the Game Table, the top priorities are the Game, itself, and FUN for everyone, including the GM. Keep to that, and you can get by with quite a lot... ;o)
@@elgatochurro Well, you just keep waxing and twirling the mustaches on your cute little copies of Snidely Whiplash... burn out and wonder why in that case. ;o)
This reminds me of something that happened to me a few weeks ago. Our party was exploring a dungeon and entered a tunnel just small enough we had to crawl through it on our hands and knees (except the halfling). The tunnel seemed to just keep going and going without end, and my DM (who also watches these videos) emphasized this by stating that hours keep passing one by one. At this point I was pretty sure I knew what was happening, and I had an idea of how to test. So, I said that my character took a metal piton out and stabbed it into the ground, and that we should keep moving. I had expected to just test my theory and then explain to the other players. They, however, were having none of that. They would not proceed until I explained my theory: we were in some kind of loop using portals to send us back to an earlier part of the cave whenever we progressed past a certain point. We kept going and happened upon the piton again, proving my theory. Another player then used detect magic and we figured out how to solve the puzzle. What I find interesting is that, unlike the scenarios in this video, this was lack-of-communication between players (I'm certain my DM knew what I was doing). I wanted to have my "gotcha" moment, which would have been more of a "haha, look how smart I am" moment by not explaining my plan until AFTER I had proof. It kind of took a little bit of the fun out of it for me in the moment, but in the end I still felt good about figuring out the situation. Plus, looking back, it wasn't really fair to everyone else to not explain what I was doing. I guess what I'm saying is, sometimes you need talk to the other players as well, that way they're on the same page. I think it's also important to note that me explaining my plan would make sense both and out of game, which was good, but sometimes you'll need separate the two. Maybe your character has some kind of secret or hidden goal that, while the other characters in the game shouldn't know about, the players probably should. It might sound like meta gaming, but it can also help a game run more smoothly.
About the cannon/gun: You can disable it with using physics. The ball when friend has a certain kinetic energy. It retains the same energy after passing the ring and "growing". The result would be a big but slow flying cannonball, next to useless for the guy with the gun.
There are a gazillion arguments that can be used against it. I can add: How fast does the "growing" occur? Too fast, and it expands to break the ring from the inside. Too slow, and it has hit its target while still being small. etc. I think it is a wrong approach to try to come up with such arguments against it. Instead, we have to look at why the player come up with the idea in the first place. There can be several reasons. For example: in the Disaster & Death game (D&D for short) weapons are as lethal as dull toothbrushes, thus players may wish for a more effective weapon that can prevent combats from always taking up the entire session. Or Is the game full of "stupid magic" already, and thus the players just want to add more to it? Usually due to the GM already is using the poor "because... magic..." excuse for things that make no sense. In both cases, it is not about preventing the players from doing it. Instead, it is about solving the underlying problem.
@@larsdahl5528 Let me say it so, if the GM does not want it, we can stop it. And if he is good, he can give a covincing argument. Which makes these gotcha stories pointless. But at the end, it should be a game with, not against each other.
May I add a suggestion to these delightful ones? When accidental, I think this stems from the illusion (as it only ever was) that the GM knows everything about the world, which is kind of the old school style. This can be avoided by more of a shared world building approach: when players reach a new town, ask them to suggest some buildings, then the GM fills them wirh NPCs. At a new shop, the players get to suggest some items, then the GM sets the prices. This requires a bit more improvisation from everyone, but at least no one feels like the game isn't for them!
The classic “what’re you going for here?” And they say “I’d like to sorta kinda Hotwire the thing with a magic potion and use my McGuffin of magic to see if we can find where the princess is?” And you say “oh word. Gimme a dice roll”
Uhh...guys? A musket is a muzzle loader. The mini cannon ball would revert as the Player loads the ball destroying the musket's muzzle. So, yeah. The Player definitely got one over on the GM.
That intentional pulling one over on the DM thing, I've had that happen more than once. Every time I break it down with the standard talk of how I am not against the players and I'm more than willing to accommodate any crazy ideas so long as they talk with me about it. Most recently I had my group playing Monster of the Week and was running them through the Dream Away the Time scenario in the book. So for those who don't know, MotW is a Powered by the Apocalypse game with the main gimmick being that the Keeper has to create a mystery and a timeline of increasingly bad things and the players are encouraged to disrupt that timeline. We ended the previous session with the players finding out that the main villain of the scenario was a Redcap named Bonecruncher and was revealed to be an ogre wearing a moist red cap, said cap was also revealed to be his weakness (another mechanic pivotal to the monster slaying game). So seeing that the timeline was already sufficiently derailed and the weakness was known, I was upfront about both of those details, I told my players they could search for any Redcap lore to figure out the inspirations behind this monster. I'll admit that was a mistake. Come the next session and one player immediately says he starts whittling. I ask what and he just says he'll tell me later. At this point I made a mental note that whatever it was he comes up with, unless it was particularly clever, will not work. Fast forward to the fight and the player reveals that he has whittled a crucifix, I ask why and he confusedly says that it was a part of the lore on how to defeat Redcaps. I facepalm and remind him that he already knew the monster's weakness and that just carving an image isn't enough to give it power. I did offer him a Use Magic roll to try to turn this into something he could use though, I liked the idea a little, but I was very upfront about the fact that if he had just told me from the beginning that I would have worked with him to make it useful. He's a better player now, but that was an annoying moment.
You really nailed it, Mr. Skorkowsky, I've had a few players like this over many years . What's sad is that when you weed out these players and just game with your favorite players, you end up with one or two players. :(
Many times you can train the bad ones to become good. With issues like this, maybe the player is paranoid because they used to have a really mean/adversarial DM. So you show by example what a good game is, and they stop doing the bad stuff. It won't always work, but often it will. If you "weed out" the players instead of helping them, it just confirms their bad experiences, and you lose a potentially great player who just needed some guidance.
Also, rings aren't usually depicted as working like that. You have to wear the ring to make it work. That usually requires a living being. Just passing an inanimate object through it won't work. That would be this GM's take on it anyway. Of course if the players were to actually ask if it would work, I might be able to warn them, but... players gonna be players.
And this is the reason my players don't try to pull that one on me. They know that I'll very likely find a way to shoot it down if I don't want it to happen. And the chance of this being the case reaches 100% quickly if I feel that my players tried to "trick" me into something like that. Be upfront about it. Your chances are good that I not only love a creative application of something like that, enough to let even some minor inconvenient facts about physics slide, the game may even change ever so slightly to ensure that your awesome trick works flawlessly and saves the day. I guess every GM loves players who have creative ideas and these are the most memorable moments in a game, and things that will be talked about for years with a "remember when we..." lead in. But they're only fun if they don't blow up the plot in the process. Else nobody will want to remember it, the trick that outmaneuvered and unhinged the plot rather than the big bad end monster.
There's a really great special ability in Shadowrun 5e called Common Sense. It's really cheap, and what it does is give the player a pool of points they can spend every session where they can just ask the GM 'This is my plan, am I missing something obvious?' and the GM will tell them, or the GM can just interject before the player does something with an obvious problem and mark off a point for it. Whether or not you want a specific game mechanic or not for this kind of thing, the ability really helps to set the tone for the game. The GM is trying to communicate a bunch of information about the world, you're playing a character who knows all about that even if you, the player, don't and you're trying to make complicated plans. Everyone at the table wants what goes down to make sense, so make it clear that there's free reign to just ask 'does what we're doing make sense to you?' It makes so much more sense to do it like that rather than trying to keep your plans hidden from your GM, or waiting to pounce on silly mistakes your players make. They'll make plenty of mistakes no matter what you do, so why not warn them when they're about to make a silly one that wouldn't make for a good story and their character would know better?
@@thomassprik5786 Fair enough. It may not be all that popular these days anyway, but A) I'm old and B) I did a paper on nursery rhymes in college and the history of that one sticks in my head. The original version (which goes back to the 1400's IIRC) was a lot racier - it's basically about peeping Toms ogling three young maids in their bath. :)
I've always found the idea of "pulling one over on the GM" to be such a strange mindset. It'd only ever be acceptable if you're dealing with a GM who needs a mouthful of humble pie. Of course, given how so many TRPG stories on the internet are hugely exaggerated, if not outright fabrications, I doubt it ever happened in the first place the way the narrator says it did.
My last game shop, the owner's wife that DM would just seriously screw over the PCs during play. She wouldn't out right kill the players' PCs, just used a random roll chart to screw them over. Great news, she was a great storyteller and like watching any good horror movie or book, you just have to see how the next guy is going to get it. We had a couple of new players one day that didn't hear how over the top we could get. Game started off at 2nd-level PC facing off against a goblin tribe in a set of caves ruled over by six bugbears. Opening part of play the PC ended up running from a giant insect with the dwarf being carried by the half ogre, with the dwarf yelling to run faster. DM, " As you goblins are hanging out playing cards you see an ogre carrying five other screaming people run pass your doorway being chased by a giant insect." Long time player, " I slowly close the door." Other old player, " I tell the others I am going to check on the children as I go out the back side door." New Player, " Wait a minute, we are now PCing the goblins ?! How do you guys know there are two doors in the room ? She didn't say anything about doors being in the room ?!" DM, " You are the goblins, and this is your home so you guys should know the lay out." Long time player, " It is called Reverse Dungeon, you make it up as you go along. The DM gives your lair actions a yes or no base on the even vs odds number rolled on the dice." Plot points, .. Giant insects invaded the goblins' lair. Six bugbear took over the goblins, the runt of the bugbears just want to get away from the other bugbears, will help the PCs. Goblins are more than happy to team up with the dwarf and half ogre to get rid of the bugbear bullies. Funny combat, two bugbears chase the PCs into a dead-end room with a door having no lock. Pushing contest on the door between two bugbears vs two humans and three goblins. Bugbears win strength check push door but failed their balance dexterity causing them to slip and fall inwards. The PCs counter shove and slam the door into the face of a bugbear knocking it out. Outcome, the goblins raise young giant insects for food and turn the shells into wood vanish for the human villagers and trade trace minerals with the humans, and hunt/eat field rats. Humans trade the goblins cheese, other food stuff, and clothes. The local lord sells the minerals the goblin mines. 2.) Another combat encounter story, my PC ended up in mass combat and came face to face with the enemy warlord. I rolled high enough for a lucky off hand attack nut shot kick ! Bad news, I failed my strength check to knock him off balance and only did 1dmg. ( I have been in bad moments like that in real life .. all that does is really pizz the other guy off , .. a lot ! ) The warlord toss away his shield and sword, and curb stomp my PC with his bare hands, cussing the whole time for ten rounds yelling. There was a d20 roll of 15, two 20's, and seven rolls above 16's on intimidation skill checks. Combat just stop and everyone just said .. D .. A ..M .. ! Hope you have a good weekend, and have fun gaming.
Being optimistic, I think it's not about screwing over or tricking the GM, but instead about doing something so clever and inventive that even the GM (the god of the world) is surprised. Think about how much of fiction deals with "ordinary" humans outsmarting (and/or otherwise overcoming) forces that should be above them; it's the arrogant and ambitious part of human nature. In a less dramatic sense, the players just wanna be the one special player that does this super awesome thing that even the GM couldn't anticipate.
I've had some try stuff like combining spells and the like to be able to do incredibly ridiculous, overpowered things. They ended up not being fans of wands of counterspell or wands of antimagic that didn't have any charges left by the party got to them.
Cooperation between players and GM is such a wonderful and uplifting thing. For example, I found prophecies quite difficult to handle in the past, because - naturally - I had to make them come true all the while somehow managing NOT to railroad the players. As a result, I kept them vague and often uninteresting. Now, I have transferred the responsibility to my PLAYERS to make the visions come true. So now, every time a character tries divination or something similar, it's like giving the players homework. This comes also in very handy for purposes like steering the plot towards awsome events. And most important, we all enjoy it a big deal.
Great video. Of course, asking creates expectations. I remember a DM a few years ago who specifically asked his players what sort of player-specific magical item would they like (sort of as an evolving item) and I suggested some sort of espionage/stealth themed wonderous item as my character was heading that way and I thought it would add a lot more RP options and flavour. He then completely ignored my request and made me an arm mounted dart thrower. If he’d just given that to me without asking, I’m sure I would have worked out how to have fun with it, but as it was, I was simply disappointed.
That stinger at the end is a perfect answer to players that are cheeky about the weapons they want. I will have to remember that one. Player: I wish for a sword that never misses. GM: The genie conjures a simple, ordinary sword made of high-quality steal. He then says "Your wish is granted. A sword as is never misses and hits the target you strike with it. It is not whether the weapon misses, but how good the wielder is with using it."
People in general have difficulty vocalizing what they want, either because they don't know, or because as a society we tend to label people who know what they want and say it as bullish. There's a reason people always say things like: "I was just thinking that maybe, if it's ok, and I'm really just sort of throwing that out there, I mean if you think that perhaps maybe it would be ok". I call it the Last Slice of Pizza Syndrome. Everyone wants it, no one wants to be the one to go for it. So it stays there, or someone eventually goes for it when it's clear no one else wants it, and you feel resentful because they took it, without shame, and you couldn't. And in relationships, boy howdy... we all need to get better at vocalizing what we want - in a respectful manner. But we also need to get better at letting epople vocalize what they want. Goes both ways. Good video, as usual!
Just started my first DnD campaign with friends, I can't thank you enough for you RPG philosophy videos. They got me to consider things I wouldn't have otherwise such as etiquette for the game, things to consider when making a character and behaviors to avoid. Really top notch content
For the cannonball, the GM can say that the gun can not create enough force to move the normal size cannonballs at any real speed or distance. I like it when the players talk from the standpoint of the game play.
The third option for a player to make it a surprise what his trying. Could also be to make a fun surprise. For him to show how creative he is, in a "notice me senpai!" And that that effect can be greater if it's a surprise. But yes I agree that communication is key.
I think some players are sort of averse to having that kind of impact on the game. That once they realize they can just “ask” for things, then the game’s Wonder shrinks a bit. But I agree. I think the trick with players like that is to express how in a lot of ways the story and the world’s horizons can be broadened when more people can influence it.
I just put this advice into practice last week. My character was exploring a derelict space ship with no gravity and only a few pressurized areas. I found something that I wanted to bring with me, but it was large and bulky, and I was being pursued by pirates. I started asking the GM if I could remotely open a door from the control room I was in. He looked at me suspiciously, and I suddenly realized that I just needed to tell him my brilliant plan (which was to open the door at the end of a hallway to the non-pressurized hangar bay, stand in the pressurized control room at the other end of said hallway, and then open the control room door and ride the escaping atmosphere out with my prize). Once he knew what I wanted, he readily agreed, and it worked like a charm. Also, as someone who frequently GMs, your advice about minimizing the number of rolls to accomplish a given task was revelatory. It never occurred to me that every roll you require for the same task actually decreases the overall chance of success. So on behalf of my players, I thank you.
OH MY GOSH YES! I feel like everyone I play with has this problem where they start asking me dodgy questions about the rules until I press the issue and just ask them “What are you trying to do”
That shaped charge plan is one of my favourite of your videos. It is a “trick” I’ve used myself (although with a curved wall, floor to ceiling). I am ashamed to say that I was young at the time and sprung it on the DM fully formed and with volume calculations (to determine how many hundred D6 damage it would do). In my defence we were all young in that group and were still sure that our read of the rules was the absolute intention - I don’t know how many sessions worth of time we lost to arguing :-). As a side note, one GM made great use of a “DMPC” (it’s complicated; several people ran and played in that campaign so their PCs became NPCs while they were behind the screen) both to keep themselves informed and to influence the players’ direction - that character was involved in planning sessions and always able to contribute. They only knew what they knew; but the GM knew what they didn’t know and therefore that character was often able to ask the question that our “strategist” needed to prod their thinking. Of course in another campaign the used an NPC in a similar situation to report to the bad guys on the party’s intentions and assassinate loads of their allies…
On "When it's intentional" For the largest part I share the opinion that it's hurtful for the game. But I have to say that once or twice I experienced it when my players hid a plan or secret from me to surprise me. As a GM it is seldom the case that one can be surprised by a larger twist or reveal.
Yea we recently had a scene in a campaign that was incredible. One player met with a hugely important NPC which is as much enemy as he is a potential (dangerous) ally. The GM did not know what exactly the player was planing, so he was as surprised as the NPC. It lead to a great situation in which the player could even trick the NPC/GM with a trick in phrasing. Now on the other side, the rest of us players even helped the GM come up with what the NPC could say and so on. Cooperation is the key.
Something I have come to discover through many years is that when players keep their plans secret from the GM, then it is due to a balancing failure made subconsciously by the GM. I have seen several examples of this GM behavior where the thoughtful players fail at their well-thought-out plans, while at the same time the chaotic hothead players succeed with their actions. Why? Because the thoughtful players give the GM time to think up a way for their plans to fail. The hothead players succeed with their speedy actions because they are so fast that the GM does not have the time to think up failures. That can lead to the planning players do hide their plans from the GM to get that "no time to foil the plan" benefit the hotheads get! I have seen many GMs do this, completely unaware of what they are doing. First, when I list all the plans and actions taken by the players and look at what succeeded and what failed, they recognize how grotesquely unbalanced they are: Everything the planners do run into complications and everything the hotheads do is carried out straight away; a 0% vs. 100% success rate is surprisingly common! An example I saw a little while ago, was: The characters were aboard a ship that almost hit a dead whale. A hothead character lassoed the whale and pulled it aboard. That was what happened, the GM accepted it. If the player had asked if it was possible to lasso the whale and pull it aboard, that GM was (When I pointed it out) well aware of that the answer would be: "No, you can not lasso something mostly underwater, and you definitely do not have the strength to lift a whale."
Thank you so much! I knew immediately where the scene was going when the character asked what’s this … I knew it would end with frustration. Been there so many times as a GM, but now I have language!
I think the map in the video does come with a flaw: Lacking a "legend" (Part that tells what things are). In many cases, a list of "public buildings" gives a faster first impression of a town, than a terrain layout with no text at it at all. Example: (1) Town Hall (2) ZOO (3) Cathedral (4) Space Port (5) Central Park (6) History Museum (7) Hotels (8) Shopping (9) Restaurants
Butcher, Baker, Candlestick maker. HA! I like that. I agree that communication is really the key. My players often chime in with what they hope or think might be in a shop or location and sometimes I give it. As far as towns go, we're using the Saltmarsh map from Ghosts of Saltmarsh for my most recent Down Darker Trails game, and I've told them up front, not all of the numbered locals are specified yet, but when they explored the town, those that were established in the game were given to them. Good advice and another good vid. Thanks!
As a GM, I have had to deal with this many times. My go to is in session zero to let the players know that as the GM my role in 4he game is to create a fun and challenging adventure for them, and this means putting appropriate obstacles in their way and opportunities for their characters, and to do that I need to know what you are wanting your character to do in a scene, or what the character arc you want in the campaign. I will say this even with players I have GMed for multiple times. I have found that this needs to be said often, or players can fall into the versus mindset unintentionally. Also, as a player, I have been in this situation, and the best game moments are ones I worked with the GM to achieve. It doesn't help you to hide your intentions from the GM. The GM is the best player at the table to help you achieve those awsome moments that make gaming great.
For the record, Kirk vs. Picard was not a weird video… It was a fantastic video-one of your best, and THAT is saying something. Keep up the fine work. Your skits are the greatest.
I recently started the practice of "Stars and Wishes" in the Starfinder game I run during session cleanup. Hearing what players appreciate and hope to see has been really nice!
1:20 When a player asks me what a particular unmarked building is on a map, I ask them to roll a knowledge check This gives me enough time to look at my tables or make something up if there isn't anything of any specific importance If they know the answer, I give them the details; if they roll particularly high, I give them extra lore, teasing a quest line If they fail the check, I tell them that they're gonna have to take a look in person, while prepping an urban encounter
Don't think we'd miss the "the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker" Seth
Turn them out rogues all three.
Such a compelling set of three from the old rhyme, even if it has little relevance in our lives. I'd make my improvisation less blatant by replacing the candlestick maker with a green grocer, so the characters can get together a well-rounded meal. :)
Dammit, how did *I* miss that?
200 IQ joke
Or the Jeff reference.
Key advice here for GMs - always answer in generalities first. Q: "What is that building?" A: "That part of town has various shops in it. All the things you'd expect to find in a town of this size, plus a few local specialties." This almost always pulls the question out of them, "Is there a bowmaker?" etc.
Great tip!
That works very well. In this situation, if your player says what they need, you can (technically) retcon your previous ruling by saying, "well, this area IS known for the good hunting," granted, this is definitely less noticeable if it's something the characters would know through local gossip.
Well, knowing my group, there would be always the "what specialties" question. I tend to avoid mentioning out of ordinary things for this very reason.
I give what I call a "first blush" description of just about anything in general "broad strokes" manners... Towns almost ALWAYS have a "General Mercantile" (which is our D&D technical term for General Store) where you can usually find what you're looking for (at least a "generic version" and/or get some direction about how to go about finding what you're looking for (like a specialty item)...
In the "I'm looking for arrows" thing... (and because I AM a practiced archer/fletcher)... The "generic" arrow is a hunting arrow that just about any fletcher is equipped to cheaply make... These artisans sell through the General Store (something like "on commission") so you're not likely to find a specific "Bowyer/Fletcher" shop... Decent hunting bows are also available, and usually top out with just enough STR for a damage benefit...
Some General Mercantiles (at towns worthy of a contingent of soldiers) may also carry and deal "war bodkins" with various benefits to flight, precision, and even damage, depending on the flavor/mood...
AND for military grade bows, you likely need a technical specialist, BUT you can get a "Strength Bow" rated to "fit your arm and draw" which allows for added STR benefits up to medium range...
Crossbows and Arbalests are the "civilian and military" variants for the obvious, with Arbalests firing "war quarrels" and some even requiring winches and crap to reload, making them considerably slower, but adding MASSIVE benefits to range and damage... and expenses for ammo... NOT that you're going to care especially about shattering the "cheap stuff" on impact... so long as SOME damage is generally delivered...
AND yes, there WAS a "for realzies" "Pellet bow" made much like a crossbow or arbalest, but designed with the string threaded through a "striker" that would eject a stone or "bullet" held near the front of the instrument and kept in place with a small curved "spring" of metal... at least on the one I saw, and later on the version I was able to build.
I've found researching into and working this kind of technical knowledge into the Game is worth it for the variety. Players get to "find" impressive weapons and think about getting them enchanted for things other than "Instant X-monster destruction" and I have something for the economy to eat up some of that treasure everyone's so excited to find and stockpile... and then whine about not having to spend any of it.
In any case... Basic History 101... or maybe(?) 202 stuff so grab at it... Enjoy... AND it doesn't usually take too long for Players to figure my "terminology" (or code... haha) out so they ask the best relevant questions as we go. ;o)
I usually put some kind of bazaar or marketplace in my towns. Where you'd find whatever your heart desires. Including gnomish hookers or elven drug dealers.
This is pretty common with new players that have a "video game mentality" they assume that things are fixed beyond their control and don't usually understand the extend to which the GM can bend the world for the story
I thought the same while watching the video
That's very possible but I think well programmed adventure type games for example have tried to steer players better. I'm a point and click adventure fan and things like pixel hunting and combo trying are possibly the 2 biggest annoyances but like I say there's stuff programmers have done to minimise those frustrations...so yeah there is very likely a mentality of try everything by rote
I regularly roleplay with two guys who are "mechanics first" when it comes to character design. One is highly adept at growing his character beyond their gear and abilities, the other not so much. Personally, reading through a shopping catalog is tedious AF, and I'm willing most of the time to choose skills that make sense narratively rather than mechanically. These differences are usually an issue during character creation, and in the first couple of sessions, while they're test driving their characters when I'm more concerned about keeping the story moving.
GM, "What are you rebelling against, Johnny?"
Player, "Whaddaya got?"
GM, "Whaddaya want?"
Player, "Dang, there's always a catch.""
absolutely brilliant! although I can't remember what movie that's from and I know I'm going to be very embarrassed when I get the answer.
@@danacoleman4007 rebel without a cause
@@paulpower9959Naw, a Rebel without a Clue.
"What's this one?"
- Tavern
"What's this one?"
- Headshop
"What's this one?"
- Sex Toy Store
"What's this one?"
- Your character's brutal and irreversible death if this continues.
As if most parties would even make it past the first one. :)
😂😂😂😂
I tell my players "if you want to pull a fast one on the bad guys, make sure I understand your set-up. You're tricking them, not me."
"Dave, I'm not trying to kill your character, the efreet is. Talk to me, mate."
I find your videos weirdly soothing. You're my RPG Bob Ross.
"hidden little treant right here"
I have heard someone say this before regarding Seth. Do agree.
Bob Ross was an interesting guy. High school drop out , animal lover, reluctant military man, painter
The ring turning the bullets into full-sized cannonballs wouldn't even work, either the cannonball gets its full mass back and it just falls to the floor, or it doesn't get its mass back and now it's basically wiffleball.
Yes! The point you made about players concealing their intentions when asking questions in order have a “gotcha” moment really annoys me as a GM. I always ask, “What are you going for here?” When I suspect this is happening and they usually respond honestly, but I’ve had players literally say, “Don’t worry about it” when I ask that. I respond with, “If you’re coming up with a plan, it’s better to let me in on it because it gives me more time to think about how it COULD work rather than make a snap judgment and say it doesn’t work.” Hell, I’ve had players ask tons of specific questions about the enemies and environment, but they don’t let me in on what they have planned. They go to cast this cool spell after wasting time setting this plan up and all I have to say is, “Dude, that spell requires a humanoid target and these enemies aren’t humanoid. Also, it’s a 1 minute casting time, not something you can cast in one action.” If he just asked if his plan would work I would've pointed out the issues with it before he wasted our time and his turn.
This is the reason why I asked my DM if it was possible if a dwarf blacksmith and a human fighter could invent the Barrett M82. Their response was yes BUT only if we could logically explain how we would do it.
This^ so much!
They think if I don't know the plan then they can "outsmart" me and win, when all they're really doing is trying to cheat the "natural laws" in the game
Exactly! I love seeing my players come up with clever strategies and plan stuff in and out of game. Sometimes I take part in it as their NPC ally/allies, other times I just let them discuss and listen in. It's baffling, exciting, fun, to hear what ideas they come up with and it often changes the course or outcome of the story.
I consider it absolutely necessary to always be informed of my players' plans, NOT so I can ruin their plans, but so I know what they're coming up with and can plan accordingly/adjust on my end, occasionally give a hint (f.e. when they're stuck, when a plan is bound to fail or too game-breaking) and essentialy work on how the story's gonna continue WITH my players.
I get how the PCs and the GM are often, by simple design of RPG systems, on opposite sides of a conflict. But I really don't go along with adversarial PC/GM relationships. I've played in games where the GM genuinely felt that it was an "Me vs Them" contest...which of course the PCs could never win. Holy shit that's not fun.
"You use the spell slot and commence casting. I'll let you know when it is complete."
Combat starts and ends...
Player who has the Wizard: "Can I do something now?"
"No, you're still casting that spell."
I had a modern RPG game, but the plot took a turn as they got transported to 1880 in Texas. The group set about trying to get their footing and one of my players spent about 30 minutes going around town buying random components with vague terms (all the gadgety metal things in this store, barb wire here, etc) and I asked him, "You can ask people in town for specific things if you want them." Didn't go along with that. Finally he got back to his hotel room (their current base of operations at that point) and then told me he was going to try to build an electric generator. His PC was a big computer guy and he had such a heavy tech set that it would not be practical in 1880. I looked at him and said, "Why didn't you say that 30 minutes ago?" He thought I would have said no. I looked at him and said, "The town has electric lighting along Main Street, the hotel has electricity in the main room downstairs, had you said something you could have saved yourself a lot of time and would likely have been able to tap into that power source." He was a bit put off...
And then he had the balls to argue with me about municipal power grids not being a thing and I said the street has power, a few buildings along the main drag have power. Not a grid. And why was he arguing when it made it easier for his PC? Because he thought he was correct. Not the DM who enjoys history and who researched the hell out of the time and period.
@@tkbeveridge That seems like a reasonable answer to the question. Grids didn't just materialize out of nowhere, or get built in complete blocks at a time! Of course the Main Street in every city in the country was the first one lit up, and the more successful businesses along Main Street would be the first to have electricity! Likewise, we used to have these things called "Telegram Offices", one per town, with one line stringing it to the next town, where you could go and pay by the word to have short messages sent!
Problem with the Anti-magic ring cannonball flintlock rifle: You have to load from the barrel.
I came to the same conclusion, albeit much later.
Even if it was a breechloader, when you fired your very first shot the leading edge of the ball would trip the anti-magic while the bulk of the projectile was still in the barrel and behind the ring. Unless there was a couple millisecond delay on the dispel effect your weapon would resemble Elmer Fudd's after Bugs jammed his finger in the barrel.
I assume you would actively be able to take it on and off or it wouldn't work for the reasons you describe. There's other comments who go into how it wouldn't work even if it did get into the barrel, so I won't repeat those at length here. But yeah, I can't see it working in so many angles; it's actually a really good example of "talk to the GM", because as a GM, I'd know that they want something but it wouldn't work the way they expect it to, so a different solution might come about... Instead, either the gun/barrel blows up or the cannonball lands at the player's feet... I'm sure a magical solution could work, if done properly, but in terms of 3.5E, which is what I assume they were playing, what the player described doesn't work ten ways from Sunday...
The issue I saw, was the mass of the cannonballs.
Does the shrink spell reduce the mass as well? If not, you have a musket ball that weighs as much as a cannonball.
If your musket is powerful enough to fire a ball that massive without exploding, why use the dispel magic ring at all when you essentially have a armour piercing railgun at that point.
If it does indeed reduce the mass, than when it passed though the dispel field, the returning mass would increase the wight and the force applied by the rifle would be insufficient to propel it very far.
Personally, I like the visual idea of someone trying this, and firing the cannonball about a foot, onto their buddy’s foot.
@@Crow.Author Great visualisation! I mean, "technically" if you have magic in the world, it messes with basic laws of physics so you might excuse this but - in essence - the charge propelling a musketball doesn't exert enough energy to propel a cannon ball. 🙂
18:42 "You don't need to be a better shot, you just need to shoot more bullets" - Man who sells you bullets.
Not only is this great advice for people playing RPGs, its quality relationship advice as well
I think about this all the time when I watch his videos
Indeed!!!!!
It's when it's intentional that gets me the most. Everyone loves getting that "Woah, what?!" moment, but I just prefer my players let me in on it, even if it's via text. One of the worst feelings I've experienced as a GM is when someone reveals their master plan and I can see how excited they are, but they've read a rule wrong or they forgot about a key detail, and I get stuck feeling like the fun police.
I feel like this video hit the nail on the head. Just tell me what you want and I'm more than happy to help. For me, it's so much more fun and rewarding to help them get that big moment they're looking for, rather than worrying about taking away someone's fun or just sitting with an uncomfortable feeling like the player is trying to pull one over on me or the game.
Well, we should also remember that the game rules are really more like guidelines anyways and sometimes I will bend (or even break) a rule if it leads to something really cool or funny.
@@dauchande Oh absolutely. I do the same thing and much prefer the rule of cool before all else. It's usually only when it would set a precedent moving forward where I look at rules more closely.
I see this in combat. Players asking distance questions and mechanics to try to figure out if they can do a cool thing rather than just say the cool thing they want to do.
I make it a major point in Session 0, and reminders throughout the campaign that I am not the enemy. "I want you to do cool stuff, so tell me what that is so we can figure out a way for you to do it".
Damn, I've never thought about this...I will definitely keep that in mind next time someone asks "How far am I away?" or "What direction are they facing?" or something of that sort.
Vice versa, a DM was telling me that some of my tricks and traps were awful... "Why would you do that to the players?" He asked...
It's not ME doing this... It's the monsters... The monsters made the clever trap, the lich his his phylactery in the robe of invisibility (hey good idea), etc.
It's not me that's doing this and I feel players enjoy the experience and challenges
@11:00 Re: "will that work" I had a GM who always said "you can try anything" but if we tried anything remotely creative he seemed to take joy in then having it blow up in our faces to the point no one ever wanted to think outside the box at all anymore. So hidden intentions can be adversarial on either side.
Definitely. Adversarial GMs have been the death of many gaming groups.
If it was something rather outlandish, and they would have time to prepare, I would ask the player to roll an appropriate check - Arcana, Investigation, History, perhaps Nature or Medicine, depending on what they're trying to do - to see if they find something on if this has been tried before. In a high magic setting I can totally imagine thesis papers like "Failed magical experiments and what we can learn from them".
As a DM, not every idea should be allowed or rejected outright, and "your character has no idea if this will work" can be a valid response. Just don't go into it with the mindset of "how can I f*** the group over", either.
Players asking a series of small leading questions to create a "gotcha" moment are in a way some of the most disruptive players around. They train the GM to say "no" because the GM will be worried about what they'll end up allowing, and this just creates a bad time for everyone.
Legit I'm a DM, and in another game there's a GM who just doesn't trust me on any request and I don't even try to have the system or such. "No if I let you you'll abuse it you'll find some way to min max it because you know the system more."
I can't even try meanwhile his other players get a pass on various weird things... Feels bad
Great point!
Random thought, if you see it happening and want to add a layer of verisimilitude, have the town guard come up and say, “adventurer, you seem lost. Is there some place you are looking for?”
If they answer, the town guard can point them in the right direction. If you think the town guard wouldn’t know, doesn’t matter, you now know as the GM and can set up something appropriate or accordingly
Really great idea!
I literally just sent this to all my players. We had a big discussion about a week back about how everyone was enjoying the game and several players admitted that there were things that they were wishing was included or I would lean into more. I will admit I was really frustrated and I asked them why nobody told me until that moment considering we had been playing for a month or two at this point? The players sort of just had blank stares as if they didn't realize that was acceptable or something so, even though we had a very thoughtful and thorough discussion, I sent my players this video to reinforce everything we talked about since, maybe they will trust somebody on the internet over their DM XD
Being honest with your dm saves so much time. Like in roleplay when I'm trying to pry information out a npc often I'll ask my DM OoC "am i getting anywhere here?" and he'll either be like "lets keep going and find out what u can get" or he'll be like "that guys just not gonna give up that information no matter how hard you try". I'd rather be told "no" than to waste my time with with a rube goldberg machine that hes gonna shut down anyway
One of Seths most amusing videos. The working through a list of questions would drive me crazy too
The last big 4e D&D campaign I played in opened with the DM asking everyone what their PC's goal in life was. Three of the people insisted on keeping it secret from the rest of us and I never did find out what they were after. Two others wanted the usual fame, glory, immeasurable wealth and a peaceful retirement together in a demiplane of their own, which they accomplished around mid-epic tier (although the dimensional seed they planted in the Feywild took a few levels to mature so they kept adventuring for a bit while they waited).
Me, my fighter wanted to restore his family's fortunes by bringing home a new mountain full of ore from the Elemental Chaos, because overreaching based on Dwarven fairy tales is hilarious. Damned if the GM didn't build the back half of epic tier around the party and our allies fighting an efreeti rebel who'd tamed a living mountain and was planning to breach the walls of the City of Brass with it. We wound up diverting the thing so it landed in an undead-infested swamp within sight of the mined-out mountain my PC had been raised in - well, under.
Bit hard on the not-undead part of the wetlands ecology, but getting mired in the swamp slowed it down long enough for the different physics of the Prime Material to take over and turn it to (relatively) lifeless rock. Mission accomplished, and my guy got to quit adventuring to go help the relatives move in to their new (ahem) digs. Would not have happened in a billion years if I hadn't put the seed of the (batshit crazy) idea into the GM's head way back in session zero. So yeah, talk to your GM, even when you don't expect to get what you want. Inspiration comes from dumb ideas sometimes.
That was a good few years run, haven't had such a steady group since then.
I knew I recognized that map! Our long running campaign started with Secret of Bone Hill. We call it the Restenford game.
The hiding of intentions from the GM is one I try to combat by being fair. I want my players to do something cool/creative, just because I know it's coming doesn't mean I'm going to ruin it so I can "win".
Many years ago, the GM I was playing under was a bit adversarial (blame it on his roommates who were also players and set an adversarial tone in their play.
Well, at the culmination of the campaign, we were getting ready to raid the home of his version of Tiamat. We knew, from previous adventure arcs, that he was going to use his knowledge of our skills, spells and equipped items to tailor the fight to make us lose.
So, as our characters were sleeping in a cave to rest up for the fight, we players communicated between sessions and swapped around which character had which major items, and changed our battle plans on that basis.
-
Next session, we entered the lair of "not-Tiamat" and her top ancient chromatic dragons. We killed three of the five ancients and landed the killing blow on "not-Tiamat" in (if I recall) about 5 or 6 rounds.
We got a "bright flash of light" and were returned to our home city, not knowing if the killing blow ever landed or not.
-
edit: We later explained why we switched items around, and I think that discussion really helped us all be better players and GMs after that.
I love it when a player asks an NPC "what do you got to sell me?" which is how I hear them asking me the GM "what does he got?"
That is a role-play rabbit hole that sometimes leads to good stories.
"Uh... how much money you got, stranger?"
As long time GM I always frame my actions with specifically mentioned end-goal to anyone who runs game for me. It really helps them making the game better for me.
Yea I am lucky that I only play with friends or friends of friends, so there is some base level of understanding in every group I play or GM.
Being clear with your intentions or asking about them when in doubt is one of the first behaviours we all learned.
Same. I learned it first from Burning Wheel, and now when I play I first state what my character tries to achieve, and then how they go about it. It makes it much easier for the GM.
Especially since we started playing Traveller, the "What is your character trying to do" has become one of my favorite phrases.
"Our firearms were most certainly not pried from the hands of dead adventurers like yourselves."
I HATED as a GM, when my player refused to tell me or other players his goal. It was never even something that we would have any reason to sabotage... I believe it was something he took from his previous games. It was really awfull, because I could not help him get his goal and he was frustrated, because his plans did not work as he did not ask for enough details....
I have a long time friend who is usually a player in my games. We've played together for _years_ now, with a few lengthy breaks. Since around 2005. And only recently have I gotten him to finally let up on this "don't trust the GM" mentality. He would usually do everything he could to make what I considered a "boring" character. No flaws. No notable back story. No real wants or desires or history (but maybe a vague goal like "get rich"). He'd avoid having any sort of relatives or mentors or social connections established for his characters, no attachments to any location or pre-existing club/organization/career and so on. Blank slates, in many respects. For a long time I just didn't get it -- I'd happily open up my characters to all kinds of troubles and complications.
He did this because before we ever played together he had (in the military) played a lot of D&D with a DM who apparently would use any and every sort of thing like that against the players so that the DM could "win" in a blatantly antagonistic fashion. And the games were all very much oriented around tactical combat situations (military, after all) so the idea of flawed characters was considered "bad". I'm actually more surprised my friend still wanted to play at all after that experience.
Much like we have animal shelters that work with abused/traumatised animals to help them overcome their past before going to loving homes, I feel like we need the same for players (and GMs) that have come from adversarial tables to help them adjust to cooperative tables.
Some people are just secretive &/or antagonistic by nature when playing RPGs. Their sneaky, suspicious, competitive side comes out. It drives me crazy, but I guess they can't help the tendency.
@@Caitlin_TheGreat If you dont mind me asking you, what are you doing now after knowing why your friend made blank slate characters due to past experience, aside from continuing to play with them of course (if its the case)?
I think this is a trauma thing from bad past tables.
Y'know, this is actually one of my favorite parts of the Scion system; in that game, XP gain is tied heavily to fulfilling "Deeds", which come in 3 forms. There's the band deed (basically, what the players as a group want to accomplish), a long term deed, which is more like a character arc, and a short term deed, which is a single, simple goal that can typically be done in a session. It's even outright written that it can be a specific type of scene that the player wants.
It forces a player to give the GM specific things that they *want* to do, and helps mitigate this problem.
"I am very skilled at forgetting things...."
-Every GM Ever.
:-)
[05:16] "Some folks are so afrait to say what they want, that the get mad at others when they say what they want and even go length to shut them down." That's my addition to Madonna's Quote based on mypersonal experiance.
You know, if I had a Town of houses or a library of books and only a few of them named at all, I do only minimal work to add some more details when asked directly. Instead after the 5ft house or book I would address a third player and have them decide what is in there. If the one player keeps asking I redirect the question to each other player on the table one-by-one up to the asking player at last. This way everyone can get involved in the worldbuilding. And the asking player might get a hint that, if he keeps asking, he himself is forced to answer. That's also what I want to teach players: storytelling games are a collaborative effort.
[14:17] "Maybe they mentioned a long time back...remind your gamemaster...highly skilled at forgetting things." Tell me if you want to hear my story of the "Kackstein".
This has me realize if I make a town where I do want to know where everything is and it’s all established, I should make pre-established Flex Areas. Like for shops, have a bazaar that can slot in random things they players want that I’d have no issue offering.
saying what you want out of character is such a valuable skill I encourage at my table. As a player for other gms, or in stories? Too often there can be a mentality of not in character, spoils the game. The meta can facilitate the play. "I am looking for some place to ___" Or "I want to diplomacy the guards but.." "What do you say" "Uh... I want to compliment the uniform?" Then fail because the player themself is shy.
As a player, if there is something needed, I will tell the GM before or after game session so can work it into their narrative and not caught off guard. The player is not the character. If I am unsure how to roleplay cause stumped just a mental lock or it being tedious? I will tell the GM my intent.
Two sessions ago in our Pathfinder? We encountered some hags, but resources were slim. So I wanted to negotiate our safety. There was roleplay, but it was going on since I didnt want to just meta knowledge hags that my character only just met and didnt know much about.
So after a bit of awkward roleplay banter? I said to DM that I wanted to explain how X will solve Y and just want to try and reach an accord for safe passage. We made rolls and the GM gave a narrative on how I was able to do what I was having trouble with for roleplay.
For sure and I think you also hit on some other advice that's really important for players amd GMs to know:
Not every player has to be an actor and also as you said players are not their characters.
There is always gonna be a dissonance. Be it a difference of knowledge, behaviour or ideals. There is nothing wrong with talking OOC. It's a game to have fun, not a performance for an audience.
Years ago I power gamed a 3.5e fast talking con man. The DM normal starts us out at 4th level so I multi class Aristocrat1/rogue1/expert1/bard1 with diplomacy/bluff at 16 ranks each.
Every social encounter where I could take 10 was smooth running, I was the most popular new guy in town.
When I had to roll to talk to nobles or muscle just looking to rough someone up, IF a roll came up as an 8 on d20 it was a high roll !
Way too many 2-5, and 1's were common as h3ll !
Along with felling my dexterity/balance check of tripping over my own feet as I walk up and greet important people.
On one hand that PC was built with a Silver Tongue, but all the rolls ended up of having him be a stuttering clucks.
He was meant to become a powerful merchant lord, but all the dice rolls had him as a court jester greeting visitors and haggling over chicken eggs.
As a joke my game shop would hand out index cards with 20th-level PC with stats of 25 across the board with +5 equipment.
Then see how much the dice hates that PC during play.
Hope you have a good weekend, and have fun gaming.
I find that many players vastly overestimate the amount of detail GM's pre-prepare. I know for myself that I _intentionally_ leave things that don't _need_ to be defined, undefined. Just get the broad strokes and add detail only when needed. But players tend to assume that you've crafted this simulation of an entire world in your head before the campaign even started.
I mean, it's flattering, but no.
I tend to favor some kind of structure for the beginning of a campaign but, once the players get their feet under them, what's in the wider world is going to be very dependent upon what they _want_ to be in the wider world.
It is a reason why people should do it as GM as well as PC, so they have some insight on both sides.
Eh. Idk it depends on the situation. Sometimes I write 30+ pages and it’s basically an entire prewritten scenario or sometimes it’s not even a page. I find for mysteries with a lot of investigation and clues and characters I tend to prepare a lot more before hand. I’m also a big lore guy and handout guy so those can take a lot of prep work beforehand. But on the other hand, I enjoy having improve sessions too to avoid my players (I only play with a small group of same folks each time) getting too familiar with my literary formulas and style.
I call it the "fog of war". You don't need to render what the player does not see. At least not all of it.
Seth: "I have my suspicions..."
Me: "I bet it's Dweebles. It's gotta be Dweebles."
Also, LOL @ Butcher, Baker, Candlestick Maker
*Yoda's 1,000 yard stare at the **_ship cannon rifle_** just kills me...*
In my first game I gmd (now forever gm) I went with the butcher, baker, candlestick maker joke. The candlestick maker became a big deal because I created candle magic and to this day my players (no matter the game) always ask if they can find a candle magic crafter in town.
3.5e " Tomb & Blood," handbook for wizards and sorcerers, Prestige class: something about Candle magic functioning with potions with meta magic feats lighting off two spells at once.
Ya. Was going to DM a campaign a while back. The general hook was a new city was being built and needed workers to help out. My first ask of my players were "I want you to bring in characters who still want to adventure and quest. Not set up a shop or take up an intercity job. Or, at least, if they do want to set up a shop, understand that they might get what they wish, but, for the sake of the game, we might have to turn that PC into an NPC."
The people I was pitching this to gave me 3 brand new characters they had been working on, two of them wanted to set up a tavern and an Inn. Wanted to slam my head against the wall. Never got around to finishing the planning of that campaign.
I am a bit unsure here.
I feel that you give a fine hook (a new city was being built and needed workers to help out) that really opens up for a versatile growth campaign.
As I read it, then that city is the world the campaign takes place in.
Thus I feel it to be obvious that the characters are better off connecting themselves with that city someway or another.
What is a bit weak is telling them what not to do. (Not set up a shop or take up an intercity job.) *Not* is generally a bad word, better is to tell what to instead. (Better to "include" than to "exclude")
Technically Taverns / Inns are neither shops nor intercity jobs, thus fair game.
And I think it should not be that difficult to get all 3 together about something along that tavern/inn line.
If you were aiming for something more specific... What do I know? A mansion? A museum? A ZOO? A Space Port? Then I think you should have presented those options (As "include" list.)
They have anchored themselves in the city. (Thus you know they will stay in your world. - No need to figure out ways to prevent them from leaving it.)
Your players have that way given you a "power base" ready to use. (You do not need to make one for them!)
What do they need to make it grow? What people do they meet?
You have it, something that can give an almost endless stream of adventures and quests.
While, as the story progresses, they can see the result of their efforts as their place expands and advances!
@@larsdahl5528 Short answer. Because I’m a new DM, so asking for a simple, proactive player goal would save me a ton of mistakes, stress, and bending to try to get my ideas and hooks to entice rooted people. It’s easier to ambush players with plot hooks and the mysteries I had planned on the road rather than in the city. As, most of the greater plots I had planned necessitated them being out in the fields, learning, making connections, and discovering ruins and lost sanctums.
Much like how the Curse of Strahd requests a person be a Cleric or Paladin, I ask for something far more open that the adventurers want to make a living adventuring. They’ll be given a home, maybe even a luxurious one if things go well, but I needed them doing jobs both in and outside the city, not worrying about running an inn. After all. You wouldn’t easily be interested in solving a riddle two towns over if your livelihood and income is tied up in running a business (by themselves, initially).
To prevent this kind of forcing on my part when I’m still learning, I requested this.
@@Nickle_King Sound like you started out too ambitious.
For beginners, I will say try out GM-ing a few one-shot scenarios, before taking on running a campaign.
For everything, it is best to start out small, even when having a lot of theoretical knowledge.
It is about building up experience. That experience brings the confidence to go on with the more advanced stuff.
And make it easy for yourself; proper tools make things easier.
Here I will say: Go for an RPG system that does support role-play.
Just because the experienced handyman can hit a nail properly with many tools, it is still better for a beginner to start out with some sort of hammer.
Good tips. I'm a fan of narrative RPGs as they tend to enforce this kind of communication naturally - since the mechanics have to follow from the scene framing. That cannonball example drives me a little loopy - given conservation of momentum the cannonball would immediately fall at the feet of the firer!
As a non-veteran DM I can say the presence of chandeliers/ropes/vines/etc in a room has a direct correlation to players asking if there are such objects in said room. Is that wrong? I don't think so.
LOL
I'm pretty sure Erol Flynn's career as the original swashbuckling action hero can be directly correlated with the presence of chandeliers! Plus, it makes for good set-dressing!
Source: I am a former "pirate ship campaign" DM . :D
If you actually mention that sort of detail before being asked you inevitably create a Chekov's Chandelier. Once its existence is established, a chandelier *must* be swung upon. :)
I've only been a DM for 8 years so take what you will.
But when you full an area with stuff to interact with, make sure the enemies use some stuff too.
Cover, shape stone on a pillar or statue to make it fall, a boss using a telekinesis lair action to break all the mirrors in the room damaging anyone within 10 feet of one, shocking grasp on a puddle of water.
Your players will start getting creative with your environment as well.
@@stanard_bearer I think 8 years starts to not qualify for saying it's "only" :D
One tip I heard is to always ask the player what their goal is, answer them honestly, and then to not betray that trust by meta-gaming against them.
Great video - I'd like to suggest something similar regarding combat. Something I often see is players playing 20 questions during combat when it's their turn to go as opposed to just stating what they want to do. This is a behavior that brings combat to a crawl. And, it is often coupled with the behavior of staring at one's character sheet for the answer. example - "So I'm in melee range of this guy." - Yes "Is there enough room to pass by him?" - Yes "Will he get an attack of opportunity?" - Yes. "Where are all the other bad guys?" - Look at the map. "Is the one by the lever facing me?" - Not directly. "Will he see me if I try to run by him?" - Maybe. "Will he get a chance for an opportunity attack?" - Maybe. "Okay, is the door behind me locked?" - You don't know. "If I look at it can I tell?" - Probably not during combat. "Could I push the guy in front of me down the stairs." - You could try. "Would that be my action or a bonus action?" - An action, part of your attack. "Ok, but I could just run by him?" - That would probably work. "So the lever by the door, is it up or down?" - Up. "How far away is the lever?" Close enough to run to. "So I can pull it down on the same turn I run over there?" - Yes, that would be your action at the end of the move. Etc. etc. Each question followed by the player looking at their character sheet or counting grid squares. Even worse if we're playing theater of the mind. All this instead of saying, "I want to run by the guy in front of me and pull the lever." Ok, he gets an opportunity attack, but you can do that. I often find myself interrupting the game of 20 questions by saying, "Just tell me what you want to do." -- Sometimes the cause is inexperience with the system, or taking "push button" habits from 5e to other games (while they look for the right button to push. But some players must know i the thing they want to do will work before they do it and are unwilling to accept any element of chaos in combat. Would lvoe a video about players "Saying what they want" in combat.
I think the "Aha!" moments from players are often fostered by GMs who hear the player's plans and then cause them to fail, like they change situations to counter the plans or make npcs act as if they know what the players are trying to do, or just flat out have the plan not work. Nothing is worse than coming up with a cunning plan and then having it fail through no actual rolling, but rather the situation suddenly being different simply to counter the plan.
One example from a game was our rogue sneaking off to gather intel on some enemies, and being clever about it by using treetops to stay up out of sight. She had to roll stealth, at which she excelled, and rolled between 19 to 26 each time. However the bad guys always spotted her. Every time. It was incredibly frustrating, since it didn't feel like they were rolling well, but rather the DM just wanted them to get spotted because they had a specific solution in mind. You feel like, "why bother making plans if they're never going to work?"
This is why it's important to talk to the other players and the game master between sessions. Great Advice video for all tabletop RPGs
Yes, it seems surprising that if we see role-playing as a communication sport, then many fail at communication!
I think... Due to I have many years experience... that there are people in the hobby who are used to withhold information, as they are in reality war-gamers and thus know that the less they let the enemy know, the better off they are!
Yes, it is tough for many to admit, but: There are painfully many wargamers who claim they are role-playing.
@@larsdahl5528 I get your point, but I think your concept is too binary. There is a lot of reasons people don't communicate, being a war gamer is a very minor one. Most of them are far more likely to be related to out of game things, like personality type and personal history, this particularly applies to new groups. Trust is hard, being laughed at hurts and it's easy to get scared in a social situation. Not everyone is an over sharing extrovert.
Great video. As a GM I've learned to ask, "What is your character trying to accomplish?" This can cut down on the requests for specific rolls, and helps me to prepare success and fail conditions prior to the roll.
I feel the goal is changing:
At first, the goal is to get an overall impression of the village.
Later, the goal changes to finding a fletcher.
I sense a collision of interests:
GM wants to give a fine map to give a quick overview of the village.
PC sees no describing text anywhere, and thus starts the tedious question sequence.
In short: I think the map is counterproductive, in that it gives the impression that there is something more important (handout emphasis) to this village.
Drives me nuts that it takes me less than one round to find a problem with the cannon rifle: antimagic doesn't dispel ongoing spells, it suppresses them. The cannonball starts to return to normal size for the instant it's passing through the ring, then resumes being bullet-sized.
That is why my first question as GM is always what the player wants to get out of the character and do not assume things. The example I usually give why I do this is a hardboiled detective in a Cthulhu game, since maybe the player wants to play that because they want indeed be investigative, but there is also the chance that the player just wants to play the tough loner guy but is not really interested in solving mysteries but want to punch stuff instead. Also, playing in a conflict resolution way of using dice rolls also lead to better communication over a task resolution style game, since it automatically always included the goal of a cause of action and doesn't look at every single step along the way.
That's why in call of cthulu, they say to describe intent instead of action when declaring a roll.
They give an example that if everyone deacribes actions instead of intent that it can just spiral out of control because the dice are left out.
"I swing my sword!
I freeze the sword!
Yeah, well I actually set the sword on fire!
I break the sword!
Foiled again? I'll just punch you!"
And on, and on, and on...
Great rule that I use all the time to deal with the problems you described in this video, along with some good old fashioned talking!
"I'm the GM, you can trust me, get to the point, and tell me what you want. Don't dilly dally! If you don't know what you want either, that's fine! But make it clear that you have no idea what you're going for either! You can trust that I, the GM will make sure you have a great time, and that what you do results in something interesting."
Great video as always! It's nice to finally see a video about this topic!
It was something I knew others suffered from because of experience but always had a naghing feeling that it was just me.
Hopefully this increases awareness about this problem for GM's and players alike.
ED: You see a well groomed garden. In the middle, on a small hill, you see a gazebo.
ERIC: A gazebo? What color is it?
ED: [pause] It's white, Eric.
ERIC: How far away is it?
ED: About 50 yards.
ERIC: How big is it?
ED: [pause] It's about 30 ft across, 15 ft high, with a pointed top.
ERIC: I use my sword to detect good on it.
ED: It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo.
ERIC: [pause] I call out to it.
ED: It won't answer. It's a gazebo.
ERIC: [pause] I sheathe my sword and draw my bow and arrows. Does it respond in any way?
ED: No, Eric, it's a gazebo!
ERIC: I shoot it with my bow. [roll to hit] What happened?
ED: There is now a gazebo with an arrow sticking out of it.
ERIC: [pause] Wasn't it wounded?
ED: OF COURSE NOT, ERIC! IT'S A GAZEBO!
ERIC: [whimper] But that was a +3 arrow!
ED: It's a gazebo, Eric, a GAZEBO! If you really want to try to destroy it, you could try to chop it with an axe, I suppose, or you could try to burn it, but I don't know why anybody would even try. It's a @#$%!! gazebo!
ERIC: [long pause. He has no axe or fire spells.] I run away.
ED: [thoroughly frustrated] It's too late. You've awakened the gazebo. It catches you and eats you.
ERIC: [reaching for his dice] Maybe I'll roll up a fire-using mage so I can avenge my Paladin.
Are you OK?
Something I've found is this tendency for players to feel like the game is something the GM gives them, rather than something they have a creative stake in, particularly this sense that although they have hopes of something they'd like to happen, that if they simply *ask* for it rather than the GM guessing correctly what they want, that it somehow *doesn't count*
Hard mindset to break.
And here in NZ there's the problem that players don't want to make a fuss. Ask them at the outset what they want, and you'll get a chorus of "Yeah, nah, I'm good with anything eh", but as soon as you hand them a buyer's guide of magic items and large objects (elephants, airships, etc.) they'll enthusiastically start asking if the campaign can contain this or that in it.
Self-defeating mindsets, everywhere
I loved your point towards the end was on point! Our best adventures are when players tell me "I want a magic belt" or "I want to find my parents." Then I can tailor a few sessions around that. It's GM GOLD!!!!! Thanks for all your videos, Seth. you're the best.
Always got time for Seth Skorkowsky content!
In The Car Post Game: my last group was notorious for not telling the GM anything. After each session the GM was obsessive about asking for feedback (but mostly would get sore about unfavorable news and only really wanted praise) and my compatriots would only say "it's good" or "I had fun". But then I had to listen to them moan for the next half-hour on the ride home about EVERYTHING! From bad calls to misunderstanding their characters they had plenty to say but never to his face. I got tired of it and decided to actually give feedback for my character and experience (making sure it wasn't "criticism" but more of a "clearing up some misunderstandings). It wasn't long before my character was given so much more attention because I spoke up. The GM had a lot of inspiration from my end and I had a lot of options going forward. The whole group improved slowly after that but I did get stuck as the mouthpiece for us players in spite of my efforts to teach them to open their own mouths.
One whole campaign started glorious! The GM stated he wanted it to be high fantasy exploration based: travelling the world. So I made a sea faring dwarf with a personal beef with pirates. I had an absolute BLAST for the first chapter because I communicated with him. I had so much fun I felt I had taken the lion's share of the attention so I said he should focus on someone else's story for the next leg.....
...he chose the least communicative player and the game damn near died. It slowed to a crawl and Friday became a chore.
This! All of this! You have to be honest with the GM about your intent for everyone's sanity and to ensure the game works.
I like how Shadowrun allows players to make their own contacts so if they want something, they can use their own contacts to get what they need. A mage might know a talismonger, a sniper might know a weapon dealer, and the face might know someone good at making fake IDs.
Hey, this is a really important issue for me and thank you very much for making this video. For me this was not a little thing, this was a group shattering thing.
A player of mine decided without telling anyone in the group that he will not ever "whine to the GM". Which in the end translated into "not communicating with the DM". This was a Dark Heresy 2nd edition game. At the beginning of the campaign I only noticed that even though I expressively told them to tell me any issues they have, work with me on their characters and if there's anything they'd like to do or achieve that isn't in 2nd ed, but maybe in previous ones, approach me, even after all this he was less engaged than the others. I tried to put in hooks for their character, but they never seemed to bite, so gradually I started to reach out to them even less so, because I just didn't see the point and thought they were doing okay.
This was mostly because in this campaign I started using a LOT of advices from GMs like Matt Mercer, Matt Coleville and You Seth and ALL the other players LOVED it and told me multiple times that this was the best campaign we ever had. The first real open world campaign instead of the singular story driven, railroady ones our group made before. All were happy. Or so I thought.
After a year or so I started to notice more and more of these "A-HA" moments, grumpiness and some passive aggression from this player. I knew they didn't agree with me houseruling the game (they were very much of a RAW type of person), but after another houserule suggestion, they sent everyone a long, aggressive letter, about how I, the GM, am ruining everything. Everyone was shocked, I felt broken. Some players came to defend me, but we settled down and I agreed to tweak the system less and we moved on. But the aggressive behaviour kept coming and only after I specifically asked them "do you have a problem with me" did they say "YES". It turned out there were multiple issues in the background, which I didn't know anything about at all, like me creating random loots for the party and he thought that I am specifically not giving them anything. Or me granting the others custom talent (which I told them about at the beginning). So thanks to my suggestion, we sat down 1-on-1, talked a whole day, I said sorry and explained myself. It thought we were good. I was wrong...
I think you see where this is going. There were still issues everytime we tried to solve the previous ones. After about a year of the first incident, they left, another one followed because he felt the atmosphere was just bad and they hadn't been enjoying the game for months at that point. The group fell apart.
Now I'm not saying I'm not at fault at all, probably should have recognised things beforehand or tried to talk to them more. But I just still can't understand how the group went from "best campaign" to "totally broken" in one year, while all I had were good intentions and openness and literally thousands of hours put into the campaign.
Say what you want. It is REALLY important to communicate.
Honestly after the guy wrote that letter you should have thrown him out.
Like, I understand not wanting to cause a scene or confront people, but anyone who's willing to resort to something like that BEFORE ever actually speaking to you isn't someone you should have at your table, or...probably even be friends with outside the game either.
Some people are not worth it and if you don't deal with that, it can start hurting the rest of the group too.
I'm not trying to say that it's all your fault or anything, who knows what MIGHT have happened, after all...and hindsight is 20/20.
But sometimes trying to be the nice guy for too long causes more harm than it avoids. Trust me. Sometimes "please don't come back" is the only answer, even if it really really sucks to ever say that to someone.
More than anything else the "gotcha" version of this problem bothers me. Certain spells in D&D seem especially prone to this.
"What kind of weapon is the barbarian warlord weilding?"
"Well, like I said, it's a greataxe."
"What kind of handle does it have?"
"Well I suppose it's made of some wicked looking dragon bone from a kill their father's father made long ago."
"Oh, so Heat Metal won't work on it then?"
"Why the hell didn't you start with that? Just say 'will Heat Metal work on their weapon next time!'"
Don't back me into a corner where I might nullify your spell because you thought you'd trick me into saying the weapons handle is made of metal. It will either work or it won't, I'm not here to be your adversary, the villains are!
Very true
Gotta say Seth missed the third reason for the "Gotcha" thing... With some GM's there's a sub-plot to the Game, and Players who can surprise them from time to time can win stuff in-game... I've known quite a few... It's just a subtler layer of "mental chess" involved as the regular game carries on... Plots don't inherently change, and you CAN be "the big dumb stereotypical barbarian" at absolutely ZERO deficit... BUT manage the gag or bit that shocks the GM into wide-eyed silence and earn "the face" and you can get a little something in-game... usually worth no more than a cheesy +1 something or other flashy, but something... screw it up (like getting "caught") and it's nothing worse than a denial and call-out... something like "Yeah, don't think for a moment that I can't see you slowly constructing Batman in my D&D setting mid-game."
..."Damn... I tried, guys."
It kind of depends on the general "flavor" of the Game and the "Play Style" of the GM. BUT a solid group of Players CAN have a perfectly healthy Game of "Gotcha" with their GM and still carry on the Campaigns. It takes a gift for subtlety and keeping it to an agreeable layer of "sub-plot"... That's all.
Whatever "styles" you want to mix or match at the Game Table, the top priorities are the Game, itself, and FUN for everyone, including the GM. Keep to that, and you can get by with quite a lot... ;o)
@@gnarthdarkanen7464 very interestingly not fun and I dont care...
@@elgatochurro Well, you just keep waxing and twirling the mustaches on your cute little copies of Snidely Whiplash... burn out and wonder why in that case. ;o)
@@gnarthdarkanen7464 there's a level of seriousness I want in my story telling and roleplay. I'm not putting effort to just repeat memes
This reminds me of something that happened to me a few weeks ago. Our party was exploring a dungeon and entered a tunnel just small enough we had to crawl through it on our hands and knees (except the halfling). The tunnel seemed to just keep going and going without end, and my DM (who also watches these videos) emphasized this by stating that hours keep passing one by one.
At this point I was pretty sure I knew what was happening, and I had an idea of how to test. So, I said that my character took a metal piton out and stabbed it into the ground, and that we should keep moving. I had expected to just test my theory and then explain to the other players. They, however, were having none of that.
They would not proceed until I explained my theory: we were in some kind of loop using portals to send us back to an earlier part of the cave whenever we progressed past a certain point. We kept going and happened upon the piton again, proving my theory. Another player then used detect magic and we figured out how to solve the puzzle.
What I find interesting is that, unlike the scenarios in this video, this was lack-of-communication between players (I'm certain my DM knew what I was doing). I wanted to have my "gotcha" moment, which would have been more of a "haha, look how smart I am" moment by not explaining my plan until AFTER I had proof. It kind of took a little bit of the fun out of it for me in the moment, but in the end I still felt good about figuring out the situation. Plus, looking back, it wasn't really fair to everyone else to not explain what I was doing.
I guess what I'm saying is, sometimes you need talk to the other players as well, that way they're on the same page. I think it's also important to note that me explaining my plan would make sense both and out of game, which was good, but sometimes you'll need separate the two. Maybe your character has some kind of secret or hidden goal that, while the other characters in the game shouldn't know about, the players probably should. It might sound like meta gaming, but it can also help a game run more smoothly.
I was already going to hit thumbs up... but when the Dexter's Lab pic came up, it sealed it.
This is good relationship advice too
About the cannon/gun: You can disable it with using physics. The ball when friend has a certain kinetic energy. It retains the same energy after passing the ring and "growing". The result would be a big but slow flying cannonball, next to useless for the guy with the gun.
There are a gazillion arguments that can be used against it.
I can add: How fast does the "growing" occur?
Too fast, and it expands to break the ring from the inside.
Too slow, and it has hit its target while still being small.
etc.
I think it is a wrong approach to try to come up with such arguments against it.
Instead, we have to look at why the player come up with the idea in the first place.
There can be several reasons.
For example: in the Disaster & Death game (D&D for short) weapons are as lethal as dull toothbrushes, thus players may wish for a more effective weapon that can prevent combats from always taking up the entire session.
Or
Is the game full of "stupid magic" already, and thus the players just want to add more to it? Usually due to the GM already is using the poor "because... magic..." excuse for things that make no sense.
In both cases, it is not about preventing the players from doing it.
Instead, it is about solving the underlying problem.
@@larsdahl5528 Let me say it so, if the GM does not want it, we can stop it. And if he is good, he can give a covincing argument. Which makes these gotcha stories pointless.
But at the end, it should be a game with, not against each other.
just like in every social interaction, communication is of the utmost importance.
Personally I prefer Rythmic grunting thank you very much
@@marcar9marcar972 uh huha hu ha
May I add a suggestion to these delightful ones? When accidental, I think this stems from the illusion (as it only ever was) that the GM knows everything about the world, which is kind of the old school style. This can be avoided by more of a shared world building approach: when players reach a new town, ask them to suggest some buildings, then the GM fills them wirh NPCs. At a new shop, the players get to suggest some items, then the GM sets the prices. This requires a bit more improvisation from everyone, but at least no one feels like the game isn't for them!
The classic “what’re you going for here?”
And they say “I’d like to sorta kinda Hotwire the thing with a magic potion and use my McGuffin of magic to see if we can find where the princess is?”
And you say “oh word. Gimme a dice roll”
Uhh...guys? A musket is a muzzle loader. The mini cannon ball would revert as the Player loads the ball destroying the musket's muzzle. So, yeah. The Player definitely got one over on the GM.
That intentional pulling one over on the DM thing, I've had that happen more than once. Every time I break it down with the standard talk of how I am not against the players and I'm more than willing to accommodate any crazy ideas so long as they talk with me about it.
Most recently I had my group playing Monster of the Week and was running them through the Dream Away the Time scenario in the book. So for those who don't know, MotW is a Powered by the Apocalypse game with the main gimmick being that the Keeper has to create a mystery and a timeline of increasingly bad things and the players are encouraged to disrupt that timeline. We ended the previous session with the players finding out that the main villain of the scenario was a Redcap named Bonecruncher and was revealed to be an ogre wearing a moist red cap, said cap was also revealed to be his weakness (another mechanic pivotal to the monster slaying game). So seeing that the timeline was already sufficiently derailed and the weakness was known, I was upfront about both of those details, I told my players they could search for any Redcap lore to figure out the inspirations behind this monster. I'll admit that was a mistake.
Come the next session and one player immediately says he starts whittling. I ask what and he just says he'll tell me later. At this point I made a mental note that whatever it was he comes up with, unless it was particularly clever, will not work. Fast forward to the fight and the player reveals that he has whittled a crucifix, I ask why and he confusedly says that it was a part of the lore on how to defeat Redcaps. I facepalm and remind him that he already knew the monster's weakness and that just carving an image isn't enough to give it power. I did offer him a Use Magic roll to try to turn this into something he could use though, I liked the idea a little, but I was very upfront about the fact that if he had just told me from the beginning that I would have worked with him to make it useful.
He's a better player now, but that was an annoying moment.
I missed this series :) Happy to have new episode :)
You really nailed it, Mr. Skorkowsky, I've had a few players like this over many years . What's sad is that when you weed out these players and just game with your favorite players, you end up with one or two players. :(
I'd take two good players over two good players & four asshole players - it depends on the game system/playstyle if a smaller group really is "worse"
@@Yourehistronic LOL! True, as it turns out
Many times you can train the bad ones to become good. With issues like this, maybe the player is paranoid because they used to have a really mean/adversarial DM. So you show by example what a good game is, and they stop doing the bad stuff. It won't always work, but often it will. If you "weed out" the players instead of helping them, it just confirms their bad experiences, and you lose a potentially great player who just needed some guidance.
RPG philosophy is what brought me to this channel, is why I subscribe, and is why this is my top table top channel.
As for the cannon ball thing the increase of mass would overcome the kinetic energy of the projectile which would then drop to the floor.
Also, rings aren't usually depicted as working like that. You have to wear the ring to make it work. That usually requires a living being. Just passing an inanimate object through it won't work. That would be this GM's take on it anyway. Of course if the players were to actually ask if it would work, I might be able to warn them, but... players gonna be players.
Does shrinking the cannon ball affect its mass in the first place? Or is the character now lumping around a bag of ball bearings that weighs 5 tons?
And this is the reason my players don't try to pull that one on me. They know that I'll very likely find a way to shoot it down if I don't want it to happen.
And the chance of this being the case reaches 100% quickly if I feel that my players tried to "trick" me into something like that.
Be upfront about it. Your chances are good that I not only love a creative application of something like that, enough to let even some minor inconvenient facts about physics slide, the game may even change ever so slightly to ensure that your awesome trick works flawlessly and saves the day.
I guess every GM loves players who have creative ideas and these are the most memorable moments in a game, and things that will be talked about for years with a "remember when we..." lead in. But they're only fun if they don't blow up the plot in the process. Else nobody will want to remember it, the trick that outmaneuvered and unhinged the plot rather than the big bad end monster.
I love when players builds the world together with the GM. Sure there is pitfalls, but when it works is really great.
There's a really great special ability in Shadowrun 5e called Common Sense. It's really cheap, and what it does is give the player a pool of points they can spend every session where they can just ask the GM 'This is my plan, am I missing something obvious?' and the GM will tell them, or the GM can just interject before the player does something with an obvious problem and mark off a point for it.
Whether or not you want a specific game mechanic or not for this kind of thing, the ability really helps to set the tone for the game. The GM is trying to communicate a bunch of information about the world, you're playing a character who knows all about that even if you, the player, don't and you're trying to make complicated plans. Everyone at the table wants what goes down to make sense, so make it clear that there's free reign to just ask 'does what we're doing make sense to you?' It makes so much more sense to do it like that rather than trying to keep your plans hidden from your GM, or waiting to pounce on silly mistakes your players make. They'll make plenty of mistakes no matter what you do, so why not warn them when they're about to make a silly one that wouldn't make for a good story and their character would know better?
Butcher, baker, candlestick maker... I see what you did there Sir! The flying Buffalo folks will too! Great books, the Catalyst series.
That version of the Rub-a-dub-dub nursery rhyme dates back to the 18th century. Flying Buffalo is old, but not that old.
@@richmcgee434 Ah! Didn't know that. (I claim beeing from a different linguistic background as an excuse! :)).
@@thomassprik5786 Fair enough. It may not be all that popular these days anyway, but A) I'm old and B) I did a paper on nursery rhymes in college and the history of that one sticks in my head. The original version (which goes back to the 1400's IIRC) was a lot racier - it's basically about peeping Toms ogling three young maids in their bath. :)
I've always found the idea of "pulling one over on the GM" to be such a strange mindset. It'd only ever be acceptable if you're dealing with a GM who needs a mouthful of humble pie.
Of course, given how so many TRPG stories on the internet are hugely exaggerated, if not outright fabrications, I doubt it ever happened in the first place the way the narrator says it did.
My last game shop, the owner's wife that DM would just seriously screw over the PCs during play.
She wouldn't out right kill the players' PCs, just used a random roll chart to screw them over. Great news, she was a great storyteller and like watching any good horror movie or book, you just have to see how the next guy is going to get it.
We had a couple of new players one day that didn't hear how over the top we could get. Game started off at 2nd-level PC facing off against a goblin tribe in a set of caves ruled over by six bugbears.
Opening part of play the PC ended up running from a giant insect with the dwarf being carried by the half ogre, with the dwarf yelling to run faster.
DM, " As you goblins are hanging out playing cards you see an ogre carrying five other screaming people run pass your doorway being chased by a giant insect."
Long time player, " I slowly close the door."
Other old player, " I tell the others I am going to check on the children as I go out the back side door."
New Player, " Wait a minute, we are now PCing the goblins ?! How do you guys know there are two doors in the room ? She didn't say anything about doors being in the room ?!"
DM, " You are the goblins, and this is your home so you guys should know the lay out."
Long time player, " It is called Reverse Dungeon, you make it up as you go along. The DM gives your lair actions a yes or no base on the even vs odds number rolled on the dice."
Plot points, ..
Giant insects invaded the goblins' lair.
Six bugbear took over the goblins, the runt of the bugbears just want to get away from the other bugbears, will help the PCs.
Goblins are more than happy to team up with the dwarf and half ogre to get rid of the bugbear bullies.
Funny combat, two bugbears chase the PCs into a dead-end room with a door having no lock. Pushing contest on the door between two bugbears vs two humans and three goblins.
Bugbears win strength check push door but failed their balance dexterity causing them to slip and fall inwards. The PCs counter shove and slam the door into the face of a bugbear knocking it out.
Outcome, the goblins raise young giant insects for food and turn the shells into wood vanish for the human villagers and trade trace minerals with the humans, and hunt/eat field rats.
Humans trade the goblins cheese, other food stuff, and clothes. The local lord sells the minerals the goblin mines.
2.) Another combat encounter story, my PC ended up in mass combat and came face to face with the enemy warlord. I rolled high enough for a lucky off hand attack nut shot kick !
Bad news, I failed my strength check to knock him off balance and only did 1dmg.
( I have been in bad moments like that in real life .. all that does is really pizz the other guy off , .. a lot ! )
The warlord toss away his shield and sword, and curb stomp my PC with his bare hands, cussing the whole time for ten rounds yelling. There was a d20 roll of 15, two 20's, and seven rolls above 16's on intimidation skill checks. Combat just stop and everyone just said .. D .. A ..M .. !
Hope you have a good weekend, and have fun gaming.
So true.
“Totally owned the GM with how clever and handsome I am! And somebody was a furry!”
Being optimistic, I think it's not about screwing over or tricking the GM, but instead about doing something so clever and inventive that even the GM (the god of the world) is surprised. Think about how much of fiction deals with "ordinary" humans outsmarting (and/or otherwise overcoming) forces that should be above them; it's the arrogant and ambitious part of human nature. In a less dramatic sense, the players just wanna be the one special player that does this super awesome thing that even the GM couldn't anticipate.
I've had some try stuff like combining spells and the like to be able to do incredibly ridiculous, overpowered things. They ended up not being fans of wands of counterspell or wands of antimagic that didn't have any charges left by the party got to them.
Cooperation between players and GM is such a wonderful and uplifting thing. For example, I found prophecies quite difficult to handle in the past, because - naturally - I had to make them come true all the while somehow managing NOT to railroad the players. As a result, I kept them vague and often uninteresting. Now, I have transferred the responsibility to my PLAYERS to make the visions come true. So now, every time a character tries divination or something similar, it's like giving the players homework. This comes also in very handy for purposes like steering the plot towards awsome events. And most important, we all enjoy it a big deal.
*looks into players eyes*
"What is it that you truly desire?"
Great video. Of course, asking creates expectations. I remember a DM a few years ago who specifically asked his players what sort of player-specific magical item would they like (sort of as an evolving item) and I suggested some sort of espionage/stealth themed wonderous item as my character was heading that way and I thought it would add a lot more RP options and flavour. He then completely ignored my request and made me an arm mounted dart thrower. If he’d just given that to me without asking, I’m sure I would have worked out how to have fun with it, but as it was, I was simply disappointed.
That stinger at the end is a perfect answer to players that are cheeky about the weapons they want. I will have to remember that one.
Player: I wish for a sword that never misses.
GM: The genie conjures a simple, ordinary sword made of high-quality steal. He then says "Your wish is granted. A sword as is never misses and hits the target you strike with it. It is not whether the weapon misses, but how good the wielder is with using it."
People in general have difficulty vocalizing what they want, either because they don't know, or because as a society we tend to label people who know what they want and say it as bullish. There's a reason people always say things like: "I was just thinking that maybe, if it's ok, and I'm really just sort of throwing that out there, I mean if you think that perhaps maybe it would be ok". I call it the Last Slice of Pizza Syndrome. Everyone wants it, no one wants to be the one to go for it. So it stays there, or someone eventually goes for it when it's clear no one else wants it, and you feel resentful because they took it, without shame, and you couldn't. And in relationships, boy howdy... we all need to get better at vocalizing what we want - in a respectful manner. But we also need to get better at letting epople vocalize what they want. Goes both ways. Good video, as usual!
Just started my first DnD campaign with friends, I can't thank you enough for you RPG philosophy videos. They got me to consider things I wouldn't have otherwise such as etiquette for the game, things to consider when making a character and behaviors to avoid. Really top notch content
For the cannonball, the GM can say that the gun can not create enough force to move the normal size cannonballs at any real speed or distance.
I like it when the players talk from the standpoint of the game play.
The third option for a player to make it a surprise what his trying. Could also be to make a fun surprise. For him to show how creative he is, in a "notice me senpai!" And that that effect can be greater if it's a surprise.
But yes I agree that communication is key.
Jeff strikes again
The Kirk v. Pocard was one of my fav episodss
I think some players are sort of averse to having that kind of impact on the game. That once they realize they can just “ask” for things, then the game’s Wonder shrinks a bit. But I agree. I think the trick with players like that is to express how in a lot of ways the story and the world’s horizons can be broadened when more people can influence it.
very good points!
I just put this advice into practice last week. My character was exploring a derelict space ship with no gravity and only a few pressurized areas. I found something that I wanted to bring with me, but it was large and bulky, and I was being pursued by pirates. I started asking the GM if I could remotely open a door from the control room I was in. He looked at me suspiciously, and I suddenly realized that I just needed to tell him my brilliant plan (which was to open the door at the end of a hallway to the non-pressurized hangar bay, stand in the pressurized control room at the other end of said hallway, and then open the control room door and ride the escaping atmosphere out with my prize). Once he knew what I wanted, he readily agreed, and it worked like a charm.
Also, as someone who frequently GMs, your advice about minimizing the number of rolls to accomplish a given task was revelatory. It never occurred to me that every roll you require for the same task actually decreases the overall chance of success. So on behalf of my players, I thank you.
Happy to help. Also, I dig the plan of riding the escaping air as the escape.
Loving the bursts of internal reflection 😊
OH MY GOSH YES! I feel like everyone I play with has this problem where they start asking me dodgy questions about the rules until I press the issue and just ask them “What are you trying to do”
"OH! Well, the town's not big enough to support a bowyer/fletcher on their own, but the general store carries his wares."
That shaped charge plan is one of my favourite of your videos. It is a “trick” I’ve used myself (although with a curved wall, floor to ceiling). I am ashamed to say that I was young at the time and sprung it on the DM fully formed and with volume calculations (to determine how many hundred D6 damage it would do). In my defence we were all young in that group and were still sure that our read of the rules was the absolute intention - I don’t know how many sessions worth of time we lost to arguing :-).
As a side note, one GM made great use of a “DMPC” (it’s complicated; several people ran and played in that campaign so their PCs became NPCs while they were behind the screen) both to keep themselves informed and to influence the players’ direction - that character was involved in planning sessions and always able to contribute. They only knew what they knew; but the GM knew what they didn’t know and therefore that character was often able to ask the question that our “strategist” needed to prod their thinking.
Of course in another campaign the used an NPC in a similar situation to report to the bad guys on the party’s intentions and assassinate loads of their allies…
On "When it's intentional" For the largest part I share the opinion that it's hurtful for the game. But I have to say that once or twice I experienced it when my players hid a plan or secret from me to surprise me. As a GM it is seldom the case that one can be surprised by a larger twist or reveal.
Yea we recently had a scene in a campaign that was incredible.
One player met with a hugely important NPC which is as much enemy as he is a potential (dangerous) ally. The GM did not know what exactly the player was planing, so he was as surprised as the NPC. It lead to a great situation in which the player could even trick the NPC/GM with a trick in phrasing.
Now on the other side, the rest of us players even helped the GM come up with what the NPC could say and so on.
Cooperation is the key.
Something I have come to discover through many years is that when players keep their plans secret from the GM, then it is due to a balancing failure made subconsciously by the GM.
I have seen several examples of this GM behavior where the thoughtful players fail at their well-thought-out plans, while at the same time the chaotic hothead players succeed with their actions.
Why?
Because the thoughtful players give the GM time to think up a way for their plans to fail.
The hothead players succeed with their speedy actions because they are so fast that the GM does not have the time to think up failures.
That can lead to the planning players do hide their plans from the GM to get that "no time to foil the plan" benefit the hotheads get!
I have seen many GMs do this, completely unaware of what they are doing. First, when I list all the plans and actions taken by the players and look at what succeeded and what failed, they recognize how grotesquely unbalanced they are: Everything the planners do run into complications and everything the hotheads do is carried out straight away; a 0% vs. 100% success rate is surprisingly common!
An example I saw a little while ago, was: The characters were aboard a ship that almost hit a dead whale.
A hothead character lassoed the whale and pulled it aboard.
That was what happened, the GM accepted it.
If the player had asked if it was possible to lasso the whale and pull it aboard, that GM was (When I pointed it out) well aware of that the answer would be: "No, you can not lasso something mostly underwater, and you definitely do not have the strength to lift a whale."
Thank you so much! I knew immediately where the scene was going when the character asked what’s this … I knew it would end with frustration. Been there so many times as a GM, but now I have language!
I think the map in the video does come with a flaw: Lacking a "legend" (Part that tells what things are).
In many cases, a list of "public buildings" gives a faster first impression of a town, than a terrain layout with no text at it at all.
Example: (1) Town Hall (2) ZOO (3) Cathedral (4) Space Port (5) Central Park (6) History Museum (7) Hotels (8) Shopping (9) Restaurants
Must be Friday, and I am starting a new 5e game tonight, can't wait to put this philosophy into practice tonight!
I'd hope it's Friday, or my calendar is wrong...
you are extremely fortunate! Hope your game goes really well!
Butcher, Baker, Candlestick maker. HA! I like that.
I agree that communication is really the key. My players often chime in with what they hope or think might be in a shop or location and sometimes I give it. As far as towns go, we're using the Saltmarsh map from Ghosts of Saltmarsh for my most recent Down Darker Trails game, and I've told them up front, not all of the numbered locals are specified yet, but when they explored the town, those that were established in the game were given to them.
Good advice and another good vid. Thanks!
As a GM, I have had to deal with this many times. My go to is in session zero to let the players know that as the GM my role in 4he game is to create a fun and challenging adventure for them, and this means putting appropriate obstacles in their way and opportunities for their characters, and to do that I need to know what you are wanting your character to do in a scene, or what the character arc you want in the campaign.
I will say this even with players I have GMed for multiple times. I have found that this needs to be said often, or players can fall into the versus mindset unintentionally.
Also, as a player, I have been in this situation, and the best game moments are ones I worked with the GM to achieve.
It doesn't help you to hide your intentions from the GM. The GM is the best player at the table to help you achieve those awsome moments that make gaming great.
For the record, Kirk vs. Picard was not a weird video… It was a fantastic video-one of your best, and THAT is saying something. Keep up the fine work. Your skits are the greatest.
I recently started the practice of "Stars and Wishes" in the Starfinder game I run during session cleanup. Hearing what players appreciate and hope to see has been really nice!
wasn't sure what you meant at first but I think I get it. seems like a great idea!
"Highly skilled at forgetting things." Well put. I, too, am a master of this.
As someone new to dipping into DMing and get a lot of value from your videos, thank yoi for sharing
1:20 When a player asks me what a particular unmarked building is on a map, I ask them to roll a knowledge check
This gives me enough time to look at my tables or make something up if there isn't anything of any specific importance
If they know the answer, I give them the details; if they roll particularly high, I give them extra lore, teasing a quest line
If they fail the check, I tell them that they're gonna have to take a look in person, while prepping an urban encounter