My favorite instance of this, was we had a wizard that was about to fireball a group of dwarven refuges for kicks, and I (basically barbarian) attacked him, and told him I WOULD kill him if he tried to harm the migrants. (My character was standing right next to him, and he would provoke an attack if he persisted to cast) He was a little sore "but it's what my character would do!" "Yeah? Well this is what mine would do, we literally stop evil wizards on a regular basis... how does your character respond?" His character chose to restrain himself under threat of death ;D And honestly, I recommend this in general, if a party member "character" acts like a villain, or acts against the party, treat them like the enemy they are, people generally will rethink what their "character" would do
@@paulkocherhans608 in my Theros game, the warlock just crossed the line HARD and the cleric is genuinely considering killing him. Thing is though, that works out perfectly in the narrative, and both of the players rolled with it perfectly. If you want to have a “what my character would do” rule in your game, it CAN work as long as everyone is in on it. HOWEVER, that rule comes with a secondary requirement: You must be willing to accept the consequences of your character’s choices and how they alter your character’s fate.
@pimc172 why are you, a lawful good paladin, trying to bully a goblin by repeatedly bringing them back from death saves? (True example...) Yes, they tried to steal from your party, but they are absolutely terrified of you and have no plausible reason for them to know much about the cult you are searching for. They are clearly poor. (Orphan/beggar... that part, I forget...)
Hate's strong, but my least favorite trope is the horny bard. I try to do interesting things with my bards, and usually make them more dedicated to the arts than to getting some tail. But I can't even mention that I'm going to play a bard without people insisting that I'm gonna boink every NPC ever, and making jokes about such even when I clarify that's not the case. now, I'm not adverse to flirty characters in general, and half of my characters like to at least flirt, but what I don't like is the idea being forced upon me even when I don't want it to be. Also, most horndog characters I've seen have been the damn rogues, sorcerers and warlocks.
Fully agreed, I just wanted my Bard to be a cinnamon himbo, singing tunes to cheer people up (think a male version of Giselle from Enchanted) but noooo.
THIS. I ran a campaign of warforged in Eberron-- all the players were constructs. The bard kept trying to play into the 'horny bard' stereotype and I kept telling them, "You don't have the physical equipment. You don't have any sex drive. You are a construct!" Their response, "...but I'm a bard." It took time and me urging them to be a cheerleader, rather than a horny stereotype.
My pet peeve relates to this: treating a class as a job description rather than a skillset. If you can make something fit the framework of a "bard" it can be a bard. A military officer with a deep breadth of knowledge, powerful ability to command and give orders, inspiring to those around him, some knowledge of marching songs and such, and a smattering of odd but helpful magic. That can easily be a bard. A dispossessed noble who has an affable attitude, is well liked by those around them, always has a joke on hand, had some prior training with music they didn't pursue and knowledge due to their noble upbringing? Can also be a bard. You don't need to be Bardy McBard from Bardschool who Bards everywhere all the barding time, because their only interest is barding (and maybe music).
@@Syfa considering the colleges of whispers, spirits, swords, and most recently dancing, even the use of music/singing is optional, as long as your actions somehow inspire others.
@@kou7191 I played a halfling painter bard not too long ago who painted all of his spell effects into existence. Very fun to roleplay as almost a Bob Ross type, definitely NOT a horny bard.
"It's what my character would do!" Should you make in-game decisions based on what your character would do? YES. You should ALSO have a character who works well in groups and is task-oriented.
Depends on the game. DnD is very much a team focused game that falls apart if people aren’t on the same page. But other systems like World of Darkness or Shadowrun practically have betrayal and intrigue baked into the system (don’t even get me started on Paranoia). So if you’re playing a game where everyone backstabbing each other is to be expected, go wild
I mean, sometimes 'It's what my character would do!' pops up even in characters who do work well in groups and are task-oriented. Case in point, had a character who was the primary brains, Face, stealth and utility skills guy of his party, got along really well with everyone in said party and consistently put the most effort out of all them into helping the group reach their goals... But he was *also* the only member of the team inclined towards commit heinous crimes, would attack enemies vastly out of the party's league, and start genuine PvP moments, because under his peppy, hardworking friendly persona, my PC was a highly paranoid and reckless CN/CE mood swinger with 'stab first if cornered' tendencies, and though I put a LOT of work into designing him so the Good aligned party would be able to keep him in check (an abysmal CON score to ensure he was too frail to ever consider splitting from the party or win in 1v1 PvP, an infactuation towards genuine heroic types, fanatical loyalty towards loved ones to prevent said PvP from escalating past 'panic induced' lashing out, an 'in need of rescue' introduction that ensured the party became loved ones in record time, etc), and as much as I'm sure my table liked him since he was the backbone of the team's non combat stuff, I kept double checking with everyone if I was going overboard, and his 'instigator' tendencies also made him really, REALLY good for the DM to get the plot moving and for everyone to bounce their PCs off of (the barb/pally and monk/barb had a fun little detective/therapist subplot happening once they realised that their beloved 'plans buddy' was a compulsive liar who was very much Not Ok, the very aloof bard had to actually interact with the rest of the party to ensure her 'pet idiot' stayed alive, the oathbreaker pally opened up about how her former lover and liege abused her Crown Oath for evil until she snapped when it became apparent my PC was crushing on her, etc)... DAMN did he force me to sigh before declaring 'It's what my character would do!' to everyone's distress (including my own) a truly stupid amount of times XD
@@jeremiahlewis410 Thank you very much for the flattery! But I think as much as people do abuse the phrase to be That Guy, it is worth pointing out that it can also surface due to inexperience RPing, an incorrect read of what disruptive things will work well with the party, and unfortunately timed miscommunication issues(1) so as much as 'it's what my character would do' is a bit of a red flag, it's kinda important to keep in mind that even if the person using it is genuinely messing up, it's not always out of malice. (1) Case in point, ran afowl of this hard during a very important session with my previously mentioned PC: DM had the BBEG make an 'appearance atop a newby building' to show us/the PCs that 'you got her attention, your decoy plan is working, keep it up! =D' and everyone else instantly understood that... Except me, because I was in full RP mode, my PC was the paranoid, tactics guy and seeing the BBEG unexpectedly so soon after the plan was starting instantly had me fight/flight mode where my brain went 'Oh shit, BBEG has just cornered ALL of our decoys, now knows where our base is and is going to wipe us all out while telling her forces to ignore all distractions!!!' which. Naturally. Had me instantly declaring that I was breaking cover to try stabbing her in the face since well, it was 100% what my character would do in the face of seemingly imminent death and I though all our plans being dramatically dashed to pieces in an instant/a forced loss before some kind of escape or something was the point of the scene. ...Needless to say a LOT of yelling and confusion ensued (and to make it clear, I said the classic line in full 'wtf why are you all yelling at me?!' anger during all that so I was NOT helpful there >////
3:55 _I'll run the game in a setting that happens to don't have X, so I don't allow X at character creation_ is a problem if you keep it a secret until the players have already signed up to the game. "I am a Triton wizard. Since books and water don't mix, my spellbook is actually made of rare seashells with the spells carved into them. I have already finished the backstory and artwork." "Cool, but there are no Tritons in my game, think of something else." "Okay, here are the revised backstory and artwork for the Sea Elf wizard." "No Sea Elfs either." "Water Genasi then? You allowed the other player a Fire Genasi." "Water Genasi are fine, but there are also no Wizards in my game world." Formulate what you do and do not allow for character creation from the start. You don't want players to show up with characters that are completely within the rules but not allowed in your game world and you don't want players to ask for permission to use character abilities every time they level up.
I get your point. But I'll also point out how annoying it is as a DM when all the players turn up with their premade special snowflakes and have zero connections to the plot or each other. One reason I really like character creation at session zero is to go over expectations such as banned races/ classes but also making characters that will get the most out of the campaign.
Every GM/DM that I've ever known that pulled the Secret Rules crap isn't a GM/DM anymore...at least not for any of the Player's I know anyway... ALL of the ones that had Campaigns last more than 1 session did the "Here's the rough Campaign Synopsis, the list of material NOT available in my game and the House Rules; Characters will be made at 1st Session." while putting the group together so everyone both knows what to expect and has time to think about what kind of Character they want to play before the 1st Session ever happens and by having everyone make their Character in front of everyone else, it helps reduce Min-Maxing as well as fudged Stat Rolls...
6:51 - In a game I was DMing years ago, the players were having trouble deciding exactly what they were going to do next. One of them literally looked me dead in the eye and said, “Just railroad us to what we’re supposed to do next.” This was actually seconded by at least one other player and none of the rest of them protested. Like anything else, it can be a useful tool when it’s used and not abused.
Agreed. There is nothing inherently wrong with an on rails adventure. When I was really young playing video games, I'd prefer those types to open world games. It wasn't until I was interested in role playing I began to have more fun in an open world setting, table top or video game.
To be fair, if your party is asking you to "railroad them to the next adventure," that usually means you're not giving them good cues to find the adventure on their own. To quote a futurama episode, "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."
one of the best things my dm does is have a magical newspaper company called "The Reading Railroad" that you can always find in your back pocket if you're stuck on what to do or where to go. it has interesting events that might pertain to plot or sidequests in it, but so far we've never had to pull it out.
Currently struggling in a campaign due to this. Granted she is a new DM, but plenty of dead ends due to the narrative lacking clues, her waiting for us to ask the right questions (unprompted), or unnecessary rolls that stop the narrative completely on fail.
i am barbarian i don't want to rp that much but every "combat focused" games i played ended up being 3 hours of rp 10 minutes of combate so bet my ass i'm pulling my phone out if i'm alweys doing what everyone likes for 3 hours
@@DellikkilleD Being on your phone and not paying attention to the game IS being a disruption. It tells the DM that they have no interest in the campaign and that all of their hard work prepping for the session and planning the scenario is completely wasted on them, which kills DM enthusiasm for running the game. It also killing any sense of storytelling immersion when one character is basically nothing but a meat puppet that suddenly starts doing things when there's a fight. If all you enjoy is combat and have no interest in the other two pillars of play, you'll probably be better served by looking for a new group that's a better fit if your current group uses the other pillars of play.
@@siluda9255 Sounds like you're in a bad fit for a group if all that you want is combat, but only get 10 minutes of it out of three hours of play. As a DM myself, when you pull out your phone, I can all but guarantee you that your DM is thinking, "Why are they even here?"
You know what is worse than players never challenging the DM on ruling? Players who do it all the time. Above all when it's obvious they don't do it in good faith.
@@schwarzerritter5724 Claiming you have abilities or advantages you don't have every 5 minutes is not the same as the DM forgetting about your abilities.
@@schwarzerritter5724 I don't think that's what he was talking about. There's definitely good faith challenges and not many people have a problem with that. I think the original commentator was talking about what I call powergaming (not in the building an optimized character way, in the "I'm going to squeeze every little advantage I can get by bending the wording of a rule backwards, twisting it into a pretzel knot, and call for rule of cool if that fails, and if that doesn't get me what I want I'm just going to insult the GM and tell him it's bad game design.... oh and I'm going to do it every five minutes" way). I think most people call that rules lawyering, but I usually avoid that term because except for the one former player I based that sentence on, I've always encouraged my players to keep me honest. If I have a houserule that's one thing, but if I'm just misunderstanding something that's another entirely.
In my experience (and this is a bit of a personal one), the only time I really see rules lawyering in bad faith is when the player is routinely ****** by sudden and spontaneous rule changes or just straight up being told no by the GM constantly. I once had 7, 5 or so hour sessions in a row where literally everything I did was ****blocked by our DM. LITERALLY. EVERYTHING. It started when he forced me to draw 7 cards from a deck of many things because I rolled a nat 1 on an insight check on an NPC who wanted to play a game with them. I got good things being money, 4 lvls, a mech and then drew my bads, a card that gave me -2 to all my saving throws and the card that sucks your soul. What followed was 3 sessions of me being gone while my party got to play with the mech. Then my DM took away the mech as I was being brought back so all I got was to watch other people have fun with what I lucked out on. Next we went into a dungeon for 4 sessions in which every single enemy throughout the entire dungeon was immune to everything in my kit and I never once found a single corpse or skeleton until the very end (I was a Necro). The few enemies that weren’t immune to me were “put there to punish our fighter because he keeps rushing into fights”, teleported past him and rolled my exact max hp in damage on a single attack before my turn ever arrived. Games like this, is why I began rules lawyering. Because if I can’t, then there will never, ever be a time where I can contribute.
The "Lawful Good is Boring" attitude. Not everyone wants to play the dashing rogue or the edgy tiefling rebel. Some people just want to play the Knight in Shining Armor, the classic good guy.
some people dont know how to make a Heroic character interesting, so they asume that the archeype is the problem and not them. Is not for everione but they make very cool characters
@@elhoteldeloserrantes5056 That's also an outgrowth of the Lawful Good players not knowing how to let the less than lawful good characters have their fun. Superman knew when to let Batman do his work and to accept that his lectures were falling on deaf ears in most timelines. The Paladin has to know when to take the Rogue's lie at face value and go down to the market to look for truth potions instead of insisting the prisoner not be tortured.
I think that is less a D&D specific issue since i see the sentiment in regards to media in general. A lot of characters people like have layers that stop them from just being a pure lawful good, they have flaws that make it clear they aren't a 100% good person. I think that is what people want: someone who feels REAL, with nuance. Not a token good guy ripped straight out of some Fairy Tale somewhere. Perhaps having them a bad moment here and there where the BAD part of their humanity cracks through, helps stop people thinking they are boring. For example the good guy snapping is a good way to do it by showing that they are lawful good, but you test their patience they can do something borderline evil, not because of changing values but because they are a human, and humans can react volatily when emotionally provoked.
Also i think the fact that people are burned out of these character in TV, Anime and Manga doesn't help, to the point they don't want to see any more of that type of character.
I hate it when I have a village of a specific race, implied to be tribal and centered around a singular culture, only to have someone complain about it being 'racist' that all the people of this village follow the same ideology, because it's a 'stereotype'. They all live within five minutes of each other, in a small, exclusionary village. Of course they're going to be really similar to each other in terms of beliefs!
Personally I really despise it because it means you can never play to a stereotype and have to always play *AGAINST* it or else be considered racist. If a town is, say, refusing to allow a band of orcs in because the local lord says that orcs are little more than violent thugs and monsters, you don't need to know anything more to know that the noble is in the wrong and orcs are actually deep and complex and not always violent and such. You never get anyone doing stuff like, say, having orcs indeed be a heavily martial society but there being more to it, like honor and facing a challenge, than just brutish violence. The noble will always be wrong for being 'racist' but it never gets asked if there's a good reason for why he does what he does or if he might actually be *right*. A broken clock is right twice a day. Imagine a plot where the first group of orcs is, indeed, little more than a bunch of violent thugs and it's the hippy dippy idiots who go 'not all orcs' that let them in and the party has to fight them off, but the NEXT group that comes along sees no honor in fighting a bunch of civilians just trying to live their lives and the noble, justified from the first encounter, then attacks *them*. That's a lot more complex than the overly simplistic moralizing you'd see most of the time.
Yeah I liked when my half-elf was given strange fearful looks by people in a town which was terrorized by barbarian wild elves. to them, pointy ears = eat your babies
The "horny Bard". This has somehow become THE standard expectation for Bards. If that's what you want to play, that's great. But a performer can be so much more! Singers, musicians, dancers, story tellers, heck they could be actors or even painters. Many classes have archetypes but why did the Bard expectation get stuck with wanting to get laid being their only motivator?
I played a theater-type music and acting bard in a campaign once, and when I revealed that my character wasn't a "horny bard" bard, everyone at the table was surprised!
I dislike the idea that the DM has to run a campaign world which includes every single race and class in the PH and supplements. If a DM has a homebrew world, he or she can prohibit PCs of certain species as simply not existing in this world. Not every world is a “kitchen sink” of every race and class ever printed in any book ever.
For the longest time, I was entrenched in 3.5 core races only, basically cutting out Tiefling and Dragonborn from 5e core. It was a combination of resisting change and some really iffy feelings on them from bad experiences with alternate options from 3.5 I encountered. I've since come around on them, but I'm still very hesitant around things from other books, like aasimar, firbolg, goblin, kenku, etc. I usually want monster races to just be monsters, and exotic races are typically not something I want to dance around with every new encounter. Plus, I've run into too many who use those either as "human but with these traits" min/max style or "make everything about how unique I am" style. I have found these issues are, to me, exclusively with D&D and Pathfinder. Pretty much every other TTRPG I've dabbled in has solid lore for why things are or are not playable. D&D has too much bloat, I guess, without feeling super cohesive across games people play.
Yeah, you don't have to play in Forgotten Realms. Make your own homebrew world and set your rules for it! Slay, Dungeon Monarch! But if you DO play Forgotten Realms, be ready to explain and justify your changes. Especially if they're very specific and/or targeted changes...
As someone who’s playing Bard for the first time, I hate the “horny bard” stereotype. Like, where’s the Lawyer bard? The inspirational speaker bard? The rockstar bard? Not everyone wants to slay a dragon. Some people want to verbally defeat it in an argument.
I have an inspirational orator bard in the works as a back-burner character idea, as well as another one who's a linguist. I also have plans for a character who's a (former) lawyer, but she's a paladin.
My recent bard-like (Pathfinder Envoy, a non-magical social and skill bard) was a flamenco dancer at the town's inn who engaged heavily in social engineering and friend making. She charmed a painter into falling head over heels for her (not magically) and had a whirlwind romance that was the game's main B-plot, had some soap opera melodrama when it turned out he was a vampire, and after convincing him to seek mortality, got married at the end of the campaign. She was... uh... also a lawyer bard. She ran away from her family's law practice, and it came back to her when she had to act as an NPC's defense lawyer. Iria Birdgirl, Attorney at Law was in fact a real thing that happened.
I actually played a lawyer bard recently in a pathfinder 2 campaign. It was honestly a really fun experience. Everyone was out to murder the big bad while i wanted to drag him to court lol
My Bard character hardly ever flirted and was much more focused on helping people as he was a former Soldier. He was also looking for inspiration in his travels
One thing I don't see talked about enough is that Session 0 is as much for players to bring up their wants and exoectations for the campaign as it is for the DM. It not only helps me understand what my players want, but also helps establish from the get-go that everyone at the table is an active participant with the ability to give input. Also... kind of helps with folks seeing the DM as a collaborator who's also there to have fun, and not just the person facilitating their game.
9:03 ironically 5e stat blocks are more likely to have 0 nuance with alignments while 3.5 very often had the caveat of "usually X alignment". Orcs are listed as just evil in 5e, 3.5 orcs are listed as usually evil.
@@littlegiantj8761 yeah there used to be more degrees and nuance to alignment. Really ironic that this person in the video says people in 3.5 were more absolutist about alignments. Especially since the lore for the goddess of good aligned Drow was greatly expanded in that edition and the idea of mind flayers being able to become more independent if they separate from their mind flayer colony was introduced in 3.5. Something tells me he was just playing with people who never read many sourcebooks and didn't read stat blocks carefully.
Consequences for the party’s ill planned, poorly executed, or just immoral actions are never more than a few passing words of disapproval. Let it come back and bite me in the ass.
I understand 5e is flexible, and often the variant rules are interesting. But I think 5e pays for that flexibility by not doing anything very well - only good enough. And that’s fine; I think I’m just starting to prefer games that really lean in to their particular settings and create highly specialized mechanics for them.
Ooh I kinda disagree actually. DnD is fine at what it does. It’s casual easy to learn and intuitive and doesn’t have you looking at the PF1e feats section. The combat is easy and the participants usually feel very strong. It can also be modified with some pretty good flexibility with variants and stuff. But imo it serves its purpose as casual fun which is easy to pick up especially for people new to the hobby :0 The first time I played dnd. I just kinda started playing. I didn’t read rules or anything. Which made it very easy to get into. I’ve played DnD, CoC, Pathfinder, and Mothership and DnD by far was easiest to get into and there’s a lot of systems in dnd that makes me feel that way and its moddability is another one of those reasons
@@crassiewassie8354but that’s exactly the point. DnD is good at what it does, but what it does isn’t always the best for the specific genre or game you want to play. And while 5e is incredibly modular, it still falls behind the games where the rules are integrated with the setting instead of just shoved in like a mishmash of Skyrim mods. Like if I wanted to play a game about corporate espionage and near future cybernetics, I’d run Cyberpunk. If I wanted to add magic to the mix I’d run Shadowrun. If I wanted to go balls to the walls with the trans humanist themes I’d do Eclipse Phase. Because every one of those games was designed with those plots in mind. I wouldn’t try to run a classic high fantasy game set in Faerun with the Cyberpunk ruleset, so why would I run Cyberpunk with the 5e rules?
@@crassiewassie8354all those games you mentioned (except maybe Mothership as I haven’t heard of it) are rules medium to heavy. There are games far easier to learn than DnD, Dungeon World being the most prominent without getting rid of the core fantasy that DnD wants you to have. Also, I’m guessing that the people you played with the first time knew how to play DnD or were willing to learn and teach everyone else. At least the DM. And that’s why you were able to play without reading the rules.
@@lightninjohn5651 Not really. We sorta played Crackpipe DND so it might not really count though we started playing normal DND for a while till we all got used to it. The first time I played DND was with a bunch of noobs as well with only one player really having played any games. I also dont really agree because almost nobody has really heard of the DND alternatives. It is an entry level TTRPG because even Pathfinder is like really deep in the hobby. It might be a bad fit for new players but it's also the only fit and DND is malleable to any type of play. And so are all TTRPGs really. There are some things DND does which I think make it a good starter TTRPG. Classes for example are really just meant to give you the best build for the fantasy you wish to experience kinda. Rather than relying on you to make the build all you need to do is not be a complete fucking moron with your ability scores. DND is not very complicated to understand though it can get convoluted if you're in deep but you're not going in deep for your first time so who cares if it's still a fine easily learned experience.
@@crassiewassie8354Everything you mentioned is my problem with 5e, and make it less fun than older editions for me It's too easy bc players are too strong. I don't *want* to win every time. I don't feel like a hero at that point, I feel like a janitor. Being easy to start with is good, but it makes for a weak system afterwards.
7:45 to 8:18 is complete nonsense. "They removed Feats and Skill Points in 5th edition." No they didn't, feats are still in the game. They changed skill RANKS to skill proficiencies, but this barely changes anything in practice. And which edition are you using as your point of comparison? 3rd? 4th? "If I train at lock picking, I get better at tightrope walking!" What are you talking about? Not only does this not happen, 5e doesn't have mechanics related to training. Nor does any version of DnD since like 2nd edition.
The high requirements for upfront Backstories. I have put so much effort into character backstories just for the campaign to end after 2 sessions, or for the backstory to not matter and/or the campaign beeing an ill fit for the character, cause no information was given. At least in online games i usually show up with a very short backstory, like my blues brothers fighter, that just adventures or does mercenary work for the money.
yeah I was pretty disappointed for my first DnD character when I had a well thought out backstory with some hooks I added deliberately to give my character some extra goals and give the DM an opportunity to create extra conflict, just for none of that to be used.
A piece of advice is to practice your improv. There's no way you'll be able to predict what your players will do, so be ready to make changes on the fly.
On the same note as practice improv. I find running a few "what if" situations for encounters helps put me in the setting. What If the party steals from a shop., what if the party break into the the wrong house, what if they lets a secret slip. Then in session when the party does something you haven't thought of, you'll be able to improvsive because you have a understanding of setting.
I'm also beginning to prepare my first campaign, I already have a pretty jeft doc with aall the rulings I have changed from the game and what I can do to help my players. Madly scared, but I hope in the near future I can get it started. Good luck my friend.
Good luck and all the best, fellow new DM! Hopefully all works out well for both of us and all the other new DMs out here. These MrRipper videos have been a great insight on what people like and don't like.
"Its what my character would do" I hate how much it is vilified, i mean yeah some players use it to lol random or disrupt the story but doing what your character would honestly do isnt wrong it is literally the RP aspect of this RPG.
Pretty much, because every action is basically what they character would do. I understand not liking it if it's disruptive, but it should be understandable if it's to bring some good roleplay moments
I don't have a problem with people who use this statement. I have a problem with players that use this statement, but claim then that my Barbarian whom they just (insert: cheated/ stole from/ betrayed) wouldn't cleave them in two for the same exact statement as to why. A-Hole Player, "It's what my..." looks nervously at my Barbarian sharpening his great axe 'A-Hole Splitter' while devilishly smiling.
Around 8:50 this is ironic ic bc the 3rd edition (I'm pretty sure 3.5 as well) BASICALLY SAYS in the gm book that bending the rules to maximize fun at the table should be the #1 priority
“You’re not playing your character in a way I find enjoyable so you’re role playing wrong”. Said by a PC rogue who routinely stole from every NPC and party member every time they saw them and spent 1/2 the campaign getting arrested because “it’s what my character would do”. They later became a DM who routinely punished anything you did “in character” and told you how stupid you were.
i dislike players not using the week up to the session to buy their stuff in game when at the city. they prefer to wait until the session to look through the items for a half hour or more, wasting other players time.
shopping should mostly be handled off screen in between games. sure some rp shopping can be fun.. to a point, for significant things. no one wants to go on a grocery shopping trip for imaginary shit.
somewhat related, I dislike when players don't plan out their turn before it comes up. Like I have plan A plan B and plan C depending on what everyone else does, and then resolve my turn quickly when it comes to me. then it gets to some players who spend the next couple minutes thinking about what they're going to do and then just wind up using a cantrip or taking a basic attack because they're out of ideas. You have a few minutes at least between turns to plan things out or at least decide you'll just use a cantrip so you don't waste time.
This really is part of character creation. I find it frustrating when I've done it and someone else hasn't. No I don't need to go to the store. I'm already provisioned and equipped barring new developments.
I don't know if it is a "popular concept" but I've seen so many discussions, or even full articles, on the topic of "how do I create a Jedi in DnD? How do I create a Mandalorian in DnD? How do I create an element bender in DnD?" You do know that there are other RPGs that specialize in those things? "But I don't want to play another RPG, DnD is the best RPG system ever!"
to be fair, the issue is hat learning a new system is not always easy. in addition trying to find a group that also wants to play that system ( or convincing your group to switch to that system) can be difficult. sometimes it's just easier and still fun for everyone to reflavor some dnd stuff to fit your vision.
At the whole session 0 introduction, I really liked that my group of friends treated things to either be more organic(like people with similar backgrounds or renown to be familiar/acquaintances), pre-established(bc the actual session starts later into the quest, not at its actual start) or players collaborate in character creation(like building joint characters, or intentionally making their character with someone else's in mind). It really helped that bc this was all done via forum, and it took a week or more for people to submit sheets, that players would OOC talk or hype up the RP and player interactions. It really helped setup character development or fast track it, all bc thats what the players wanted.
Everyone who insists the DMs job to make sure everyone has fun. Whether people have fun is influenced by so many factors outside anyones control, and it treats the dm like a worker in service to the players who are there to be entertained.
I do think it's the DM's job to make sure every player has fun, but I also think that's everyone's job. Everyone should be trying to have fun and help everyone else have fun too.
i think first dude dont understands fail fowar, is not abuot lack of consecuences is about not stoping the story. example: You dont track the bandits? they have more money and better equipement now whit the loot, now you must try again the next day. His examples are fail foward poorly implemented
I don't think the examples he made were the best, but I agree that there doesn't always have to have a success outcome and we can afford to have at least some chance of failure. If there's never any real failure and everything you fail things are just different, there are never any stakes. Unless it is vital to the story that they don't fail, show them that failure is an option. If it's never and option to fail, you never have to worry about failing. And with your example of the bandits getting better gear because they were found later... congratulations you've rewarded the players for them failing. Oh boy a harder combat we still can't fail because the DM is allergic to failure?
"DMs should always answer to players' ideas with 'yes, and...'" No, they should not. The DM can always incorporate ideas from the players, and their ideas are a great indicator for what they want in a campaign, but some ideas are just bad for the great narrative the DM is trying to build.
Once had a player repeatedly try to request hookers from his character’s boss, but kept being oblique with the requests (“can we get some help around here that’s easy on the eyes” etc). Given that his boss was basically a giant robot being piloted by half a corpse I got to have FUN with him by having the boss repeatedly hiring highly competent people who were distinctly not hookers
I come from an improv background so am a big fan of 'yes, and...' but at the same time I know that as a rule of improv it exists in a greater context. Such as making 'offers' to each other to build up the scene on rather than demands. Also that its done to help others have great moments rather than make it about yourself etc etc etc.
@@artyjnrii This 100%. "No, but..." is often just as valid as "Yes, and..." because it shows you're willing to work things out with your players, while also setting firm rules and boundaries that they need to follow
That there can’t be evil races. Sometimes you want evil in your campaign to serve as a no holds barred absolute force of chaos and evil for heroic characters/ideals to strive against.
O.k., but why do you need an entire species to be boringly monolithic to have evil in your campaign? It's a lot more interesting I think when the unabashed evil looks just like the people fighting it.
The thing is, Failing Forwards is one of those things I think is good advice...sometimes. Failing forwards is good for something like an investigation where, for example, a DM might decide to hinge a critical plot point on investigation checks. Cue everyone in this example failing. Now, a DM who isn't failing forward would just go "Yeah, sorry, you find nothing. Tough shit." And then the game stalls because the plot thread was reliant on passing THAT check and the players just peter about or nothing happens. Which SUCKS! Failing Forward in this case would be "OK, yeah, you don't find THE THING. But you do maybe find this other little thing that points you somewhere. Basically offering an alternative route for the investigation. More or less taking the longer or harder route to the answer, or being a red herring". For something like that? Yeah, I am fine with failing forward as it keeps momentum going. Nobody likes an investigation being pointless. The bossfight example he gave is absolutely an example of where failing forward should not be used. If they were caught, they should have lost their weapons and gear. Then you can have a prison break session, or plan to escape. Or, if the BBEG was particularly vicious and couldn't have a reason to leave them alive...they can kill them. Sometimes, there's just no way to justify PC's surviving and that's fine. Stakes do need to be present, and sometimes the threat of death needs to be there. What that DM did was basically confirm the PC's have Bleach levels of plot-armor, which is...boring and deflates the tension entirely. So yeah, Failing forward is a tool to be used but it shouldn't be the be-all-end-all. Sometimes...the PC's just fail completely.
well said "failing forward" doesn't and shouldn't mean "no real consequences" It means the GM decides "No, the dice don't get to stop our game at this particular point"
@@joshrobins130 well if the plot is contingent on them finding something, perhaps the best thing to do is not require a roll at all. You can hide this from them by letting them do a couple rounds of checks for minor clues that give them more info, and have a round timer (I roll 1d8-highest investigation bonus and that's the time it will take to find.) They feel like they rolled enough to have agency, and the narrative is undisturbed.
Or failing forward like you did the thing but not the way you wanted and you need to bear the consequences, or something unexpected happened like alerting enemies. "You found the key" but player left so much mess mafia or whatever realize players are onto them
On the topic of joke characters Some of the most impactful and meaningful character moments I’ve ever seen was when a joke character had an incredibly traumatic or impactful moment occur, and you could almost see the switch flip from “I’m just a whimsical guy!” To “oh shit, that just happened.” And they slowly begin to undergo the heroes journey. It’s beautiful, and I will always Stan the joke characters.
Viva La Dirt League had a sketch that highlighted this very point. Character started out as Fartpants Something and everyone else was ‘no really?’. Cut to the scene where the character dies a heroic death saving the party and now his joke name is revered.
I agree - what isn't usually clarified/expressed is that it is mostly an issue of player intentions and maturity rather than joke characters themselves. If you have people who've come to shit on the campaign and make it all about how much attention they are getting, then yeah - it's gonna be crap. If the player has good comedic timing and/or knows when to shut up and let the others do their thing, and maybe has an actual arc, like you described, then it's all good. The problem is that, unless you know the player very well, you can never be sure what you'll get.
This literally always happens with my joke characters they tend to be mascots for the party and are also usually innocent. So when things do happen to them it can feel like it has both an impact in the party “Oh shit the cute silly guy character who cant speak and his name is Bombles and he’s always in a plesant mood is feeling actually down? We should all help Bombles for being suxh a great mascot” And then Bombles as well being as innocent as they are it makes a greater sort of tragedy when they’re wronged in a horrible way.
@@6ftTiny216i’ve literally never gotten a joke character go bad. I think they’re incredibly easy characters to play becuase of how easily you can fit them into games and have them be serious within them. Idk i’ve never had a truly disruptive joke character
I hate the idea of that you can’t use an ability or something seconds after somebody else says they are going to start their turn . Like using an ability at the end of my turn and then being told “um no you should have done that earlier “ , when nothing that happend yet would have been affected.
Idk how popular this is but: Being vague about what kind of campaign we're playing mystery is fine. But when you allow me to show up to the table playing a guy who hates elves then have the entire campaign around helping elves it becomes a problem.
@@Arlesmon I think the point is that they shouldn't blame the pc then that they don't want to interact with elves, since he couldn't know what would happen, and couldn't find a good reasoning that fast, so that it makes sense that he accepted to somewhow help the elves. Inshort it's not the PC's but Dm's fault if that happens
That's when a good player says, "This character would not do that. This character doesn't work for the campaign. I'm going to make another character. Is there anything else I should know before I do? Are X species ok? How about Y class option?"
@@imayb1 that is the point. At session 0, it should be clear what is the rough conceit of the game. The players should build their characters around it then.
Yeah... I think my approach in that case, if I really felt the need to keep a secret as a DM would be to hint that those ideas would feature in my story/that some character design choices might be disadvantaged. And probably tell anyone who came to me with a char idea before session 1 if they were going to be effected.(esp since it'll effect their backstories!) But also, I don't think I would keep such secrets. People's decisions through life are informed by their environments, and stuff like that could very much have an impact on things like class or feat. If you're brought up somewhere where everyone hate you, for example, you probably learned tricks to keep yourself safer.
... the first one is kinda weird. The problems in the game are meant to be solved. Sure, they can fail, but there should be an alternative solution to the problem. Them failing should have consequences but not a complete shutdown to the mission. You are going to fail something. That's unavoidable. But punish the players by showing what happened to the world when they failed. Fail to find a bandit camp, show them that the village they just visited was raided, fail to kill a dragon, show them that the kingdom they lived in fell. Not fail one round, and suddenly, it's a TPK.
Not sure if its popular, but when DM's get upset when players talk about things that their characters wouldn't know. Obviously you can't meta game, but to say "Hey this thing is weak to fire, yeah?", and then find a way for your characters to discover it naturally is always such a cool feeling. As a DM, im guilty of just telling them the weakness through NPC's, and i highly reccomend doing it the other way.
Unless something has an explicitly hidden game mechanic, I'm usually very upfront about monster stats. I get no joy out of saying, "Unfortunately, it's immune to poison, so your attack did NOTHING."
There’s a line between an excuse and an explanation when it comes to “it’s what my character would do”. The difference is easy, for example my paladin smashed an evil artifact because it’s evil and he’s extremely practical, man doesn’t know how to contain or properly disenchant a magical artifact. So he tried to destroy it. This resulted in an explosion and I got asked if I wanted to change my mind. I said no because it is what he would do, and it wasn’t intended as something directly harmful it’s just him making a mistake. It becomes a bad thing when I (as DM) killed some characters off for narrative weight (and because nobody had less than 2) and the next day the necromancer had raised them all as zombies because “it’s what my character would do” despite how angry that made everyone else. He then proceeded to be a douche bag for like five more sessions including sabotaging the entire campaign, before leaving because “you’re just not a good enough DM to make this fun for me”. Like clearly not, I let you do this shit
I wouldn't call these terms buzzwords. The problem is that they are largely as old as the hobby. The unfortunate issue is they've seen broader and broader use so they've gotten spread very thin. You pretty much have to be more direct than that or state your definition of the term to have a useful discussion about it.
I hate how it's just kinda expected that I allow every race, class and feature from every book ever released for the edition of whatever game I'm playing, and if I ever say "No, we're just sticking to PHB races and classes", I'm the bad guy because how could someone *possibly* make an interesting character that isn't a centaur psi warrior?
Yeah I have the same. I only own some of the earlier 5e books, and have built my world around the concepts therein. I'm flexible enough to allow some variations on races or Subclasses that I don't know, but I'm a sucker for making interesting characters within the restrictions of more basic rules.
I think the one attitude that I don't like is characters have to fall under specific tropes like the Rogue has to steal whatever isn't nailed down or the Bard has to be horny and try to seduce everything. Nothing wrong with having tropes but whenever it is heavily suggested to have only that one option for that class it just takes something away. One attitude I hate is when I'm told I built my character wrong because its not 100% optimized. Most of the time I build characters that have some kind of flaw or quirk while picking spells that feel appropriate for them. One game that I was close to joining but ultimately didn't had this one player that kept telling me I made a huge mistake with some of the spells I chose. I didn't pick Silvery Barbs and Hypnotic Pattern on my Artificer/Wizard. He was absolutely furious because I refused to use those spells. He was sitting there explaining to me why those spells are the best spells like I was some kind of new player, I never played DnD before but I have several other systems so I'm aware of how strong certain spells can be. I didn't join that group because of that player and that 'power-gamer' attitude.
The guy who is talking about the imbalance between RP and one combat is 100%, right? This disproportionately favors classes with limited resources. Because they can just play Blow their wad. With no reason thought towards consequences and fighters, monks and other classes who are in it for the long haul. But don't have as much burst are left out in the cold
my pet peeve is that people willy nilly use "rules lawer" and metagaming as a bludgeon for things like asking to do something slightly outside the set rules or asking someone to reread their features because they got something wrong
In line with the last one, my worst pet peeve is something I experienced myself and that is getting shit for making a suboptimal class and race combo. I once played a half-elven barbarian and one player in my party just could not wrap their head around why all the world I wouldn't go with human, half-orc or dwarf, which give far better bonuses for the class. When I said "for fun", they were like "yeye, have fun not dealing any damage". That interaction, along with a host of other reasons, is why I don't play with that player anymore.
As an improvisor, I'm not a fan of how "Yes, And" has become the improv title card. Yes, And is the golden rule for improv comedy. If your genre isn't comedy, then it might not be appropriate. There is a rule that comes way before Yes, And in improv and D&D, and it is this: Listen, Commit, Support. Listen to your fellow players(including the gm), commit to the group, and support everyone else. Those 3 things don't just make you a great player, they make you a great person.
I hate that falling is instantaneous, with an off switch after every 500 feet if you're using Xanathar's optional rule. It causes so many weird questions that I do not know for sure what the answer is. How does Jumping work? Is it "faster" than instantaneous because your character gets to travel a bit with their jump before the instant fall? How does the spell caster have time to take the component or touch his spellcasting focus to cast Feather Fall? Can you even counterspell Feather Fall as it has to also be instantaneous, so would you see something instantaneous?
Metagaming is when you as a player are putting information into the game that you as a character would not know. For example if you as a player have played through a module before and you know that there's a trap in the hallway, but you as a character do not know that there is a trap in that hallway, metagaming would be if you as a character are suddenly cautious of this hallway and trying to warn people that it could be trapped. If there is no reason for your character to suspect the hallway should be trapped then your character should not have that suspicion. Especially if your character is not known for trap sense such as a rogue. The action economy is essentially a turn-based economy that measures input and output. What the action economy is actually measuring is an almost one for one comparison between the player and the dm. Essentially what it measures is how much work is the party doing compared to how much work is the DM doing. For example if you have four level five characters, and they are against 27 level 3 skeletons, the action economy would prove that for every one turn each character takes you have five skeletons acting upon them.
That sorcerers didn't have to work hard because they were born with their magic. I'm sorry, but when you're growing up and harvest season is dangerous because if you aren't ready when you sneeze you cast Burning Hands on accident, you HAD to work hard at magic simply to SURVIVE YOURSELF!
In my favourite book series there is one character who when he was a child accidentaly turned his dog inside out with rogue magic... I blame this perception of sorcerers mainly on bad roleplaying and people not understanding the class.
@@tobiasbayer4866I have a similar view of Warlocks. In my mind, whatever deal or Pact a Warlock made has already been completed and thus the Patron has no power over them. The deal was completed, after all, because that's how you became a Warlock. It makes no sense to me that, for example, a CR 3 Unicorn can strip a Lv20 Celestial Warlock of all their power. Warlocks are not Clerics simping to deities, you know?
5e in particular seems to be especially rife with characters who just seem to have picked up their classes by happenstance. "Anyone can swear an oath! Anyone can read a spellbook! Anyone can be granted powers from god! Or pick up a sword, or sneak around, or fail their anger management courses!" It feels like we've picked up a lot of people who really want a classless system and are doggedly determined to decouple character abilities from any form of martial or mystical tradition that must be practiced.
@@mercaiusahh the ever classic “why don’t you just play another system?” If you want a classless system (and there are plenty decent ones out there) just play one of those
Redditors REALLY need to shop around for DMs and/or players that run the game they want. Because a lot of this could be solved with finding another table online that is running things according to their Disney Princess "I Want" song-ass diatribes.
I hate when classes are treated as job descriptions rather than skillsets. Aka every stereotype of 'you need to be a barbarian to be angry' (and also a noble savage), or a monk to punch things, or bards *always* being magical musical assholes (and having no other traits outside of that & narcissism), Rogues being kleptomaniacs etc. I like it when bards are say the catch-all of oddball skills, I particularly love them for say military officers. The best barbarian I ever saw was a samurai in a european setting. Lawful good dwarf rogues that don't steal, they just like working with machines and locks. Lawful good being a comeptition between the concepts of "law" and "good" is particularly annoying, instead of a perfect ideal that compromises between both as long as actions serve both.
@@Syfa my favorite rogue that I play is indeed a dwarven locksmith/blacksmith. The only reason he has any combat experience at all is because his clan has mandatory military service. Lawful neutral, though.
In my current campaign (2024 PHB) I'm playing a Zealot Barbarian with the Criminal background. He's a terrorist for Gaia, believing he receives his class/subclass features from her to fulfill the divine calling of eradicating steampunk technology from the world. Oh, and he talks in the Bane voice.
I hate the idea that the Blood War is this super-important thong that the balance of the multiverse depends on, that without the devils andtheir cruelties, the demons would overrun the multiverse. My issues with it are multiple. Why are the demons so much more powerful that they pose a threat to the rest of the multiverse? While the demons are infinite, so are every other faction. Then, if the demons are such a vast threat, why couldn't the non-fiendish planes unite against them? Between the Good, Neutral, and Inner Planes, they could get a pretty sizeable army. And lastly, despite the claims of the vast importance of it, it seems like the moment any god gets involved, the Blood War gets upended. Asmodeus threw the Abyss into the Elemental Chaos during the Spellplague. Zariel crapped herself at the prospect of Tiamat intervening. AscendedRaphel was cleaning house when he gets the Crown. It makes more sense to me the idea that the Blood War is this thing of Cosmic Importance is just propaganda on the side of the devils, though it does have the benefit of keeping them both out of the Material Plane.
Descent Into Avernus actually does seem to imply that the Blood War is way less important that Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes makes it out to be. So perhaps it really is propaganda from devils. Or perhaps Mordenkainen specifically is really obsessed with it.
I think you're underselling the benefit of keeping them out of the Material Plane. I also think you're overestimating the usefulness of the neutral and inner planes. • Devils and demons have no reason to attack the inner planes because they'd gain nothing by doing so. Elemental creatures don't have souls the way mortals do, and thus serve no purpose to Hell. If anything, Hell might consider itself a soft ally of the Fire Plane, since the City of Brass is a common center of trade for devils. Demons might attack the inner planes because they want to eat everything, but I can't imagine that's enough justification for elementals to deploy elemental legions across the cosmos to fight on behalf of the Upper or Material Planes. • As for the Material Plane, every planet conquered by Hell or swallowed by the Abyss is just more devils/demons. Not true for Upper Planes. Especially since it's not like the Upper Planes can 'conquer' planets and forcibly make new angels the way Hell can with devils. And the Abyss just spits out demons naturally. • As for neutral planes, there aren't very many of them. There are more layers of Baator than there are neutral planes. Not to mention that most neutral planes do not have regimented armies. They have inhabitants and natives, but those do not make armies. Certainly not ones that can be deployed outside of their borders. • There was a time where the Blood War was put on pause and both devils and demons attacked the Upper Planes, and it scared the shit out of Celestia. The battle also ended in a pretty nasty victory for the Lower Planes. When it comes down to it, the fact that angels can fall means that any such conflict between the Upper and Lower planes would be pretty nasty. I don't know if there are any examples of fiends 'ascending' but there are several examples of celestials falling. So yes, the Blood War is extremely important. And to top it all off, the Blood War is fucking cool.
@@pringles_mcgee I think that is old lore. Newer lore seems to indicate that if the Blood War were to go against the rest of the multiverse, it would last about as long as it would take for a greater god to get involved. When Asmodeus ascended in FR, he chucked the Abyss into the Elemental Chaos and the Blood War went into a cold period, while as mentioned by paigeepler, Zariel was terrified about Tiamat getting involved. I mentioned Ascended!Raphael overturning Hell in a very short timespan. These days, it seems like the rest of the Multiverse tolerates the Blood War because getting involved in would be a horribly unpleasant quagmire, not risking the existential threat that is a united fiendom. Also, my comment is that demons, not fiends in general, would overrun everything if it wasn't for the Devils bearing the brunt of everything. Demons don't need a reason to rampage. They would tear up the City of Brass for shits and giggles. As for "more layers than the Neutral Planes", first off, everything is infinite, how exactly does having more layers mean you have more infinity? They could just be smaller infinites than Mechanus and Limbo. Also, Acheron and Pandemonium are rarely if ever mentioned with regard to the Blood War, with Acheron's eternal battlefield being more dominated by the Goblin/Orc battles.
As someone who actually LIKES playing a big damn hero i loath the habit of many d&d groups to play like it’s grand theft dragon and play the most sociopathic pragmatic bastards they can imagine then groan and gripe because your neutral good cleric suggests maybe NOT defiling the corpses of dead villagers or mugging the blind orphan halfling child
8:30 I have no problem with exceptions to the rule (the lore). I Do have problems with the idea that no creature is _usually_ of a certain way. And I mean all the way to celestials and devils/demons.
First guy is very much misunderstanding "fail forward" or at least the spirit of it. It's not making it so your team cannot fail at all, it's setting things up and having consequences happen that don't end the entire game in one fell stroke or bad dice roll. You can still have your heroes lose snd your BBEG win, but rather than TPK your players, you shift the campaign so it's dealing with the consequences instead of outright ending the story.
7:47 the 'oversimplification' one, i think maybe the examples they used were just bad. But they didn't really make a good point. Acrobatics require dexterity and lockpicking also requires dexterity, and with max dexterity It's only a +5 to both, it's not like you gain the ability to always succeed on either. I actually think the opposite. Fifth edition is better because instead of having 5 or 6 things that could just be called 'acrobatics' now we just have acrobatics. And if you really wanted to you could talk with your dm about having advantage an extra bonus, or maybe even a negative modifier on specific roles in specific situations. Like how some animals have advantage on perception so long as they're using their sense of smell.
Its funny because the answer to the first guy’s problem is to fail forward…but he has misunderstood what fail forward means. All fail forward means is that you dont get to attempt to solve the same problem over and over again until you succeed. If you fail, the consequences trigger and the story develops as a result of those consequences. Failing forward is about moving the story forward upon failure. The issue that the first guy is dealing with is a GM who isnt willing to just inflict real consequences for failure and developing the story in a direction that allows them to explore those consequences.
strongly disagree with the "don't like having my players meet in session 1, always feels forced" one. That, to me, seems like a DM problem. You legitimately have nearly unlimited options for how they can meet, it doesn't need to be the old cliche "they were all coincidentally in the same pub", and player characters definitely don't have to immediately gel and be instant besties, they can have a working relationship to the same goal as they establish vibes. Yes, everyone having already been a group for a while IS one of those options, but discounting all the others, especially when a lot of players love the RP of an initial meetup, because it "always feels forced", that seems like a lack of creativity on the DM's part, unfortunately.
I personally prefer to go with: Each member of the party have an established relationship with at least one other person in the group before the adventure. I don't care what the relationship is--friends, family, rivals, lovers--but I find it creates much more interesting dynamics if there is some established history between the characters. Also easier for newer/shy players to get into the roleplay if they already know that so-and-so is their overprotective older sister or whatever and have someone to naturally banter with.
@@Guy_With_A_Laser My groups do this as well, and up it to two people if the group is 5 players. The entire idea is just 'X vouches for Y.' Zero pre-history is doomed if suddenly a player shows up with giga-lawful paladin and another a giga-evil necromancer and just start from initial meeting with zero reason to not kill each other on the spot.
Honestly, I can't stand it when people try to warp and twist D&Ds system and mechanics for any and every setting that isn't fantasy like it's the only ttrpg around. Like, I get it. It's fun but the amount of times I've watched my friends go "oh lets make it a superhero game" and I sit there and be like "you mean like mutants & masterminds" or "lets make it a horror game" and I would think "I mean chronicles of darkness and call of cthulhu exist but okay" and they would bend over backwards to make the system work for the setting like at a certain point its less work to learn a new system then to change D&D to the point thats its not even D&D anymore. Its part of the reason im a forever Gm now so i can help people learn about other systems that aren't D&D.
I'm sad that society still hasn't figured out that good and especially lawful good alignment doesn't mean blind fanaticism or paranoid delusions and psychopathy. I see alignment getting downplayed (if not done away with altogether à la BG3) and I've suspected it's in part because players can't/won't break free of this idea that took off in the 70s and 80s that goes something like "Wow, wouldn't it be ironic if there were all these bad things about good, while evil isn't really bad just quirky and does its own thing?" Though another reason is surely the whole controversy over evil races.
I don't mind the comic relief character, to an extent. What I hate is a joke character whose "joke" is detrimental to the party; or the player who has to hold up the session to get that one fucking gag when after the EIGHTH REROLL (this has happened multiple times) it wasn't gonna be funny anymore, anyway. I am also one of the people who vilifies the statement "it's what my character would do", because after the first few sessions of getting to know everyone's characters, the character's actions should be able to speak for themselves. Also, any GM who uses "grim dark" in their campaign's description and specifically asks for players who haven't played before have consistently used the setting as an excuse to torture players who don't know any better. I have gotten into screaming matches with one GM over this; and his exact argument one time was "If I run a campaign with a player yelling at me at the end of every session, I'm doing my job". NO, YOU'RE BEING A BULLY! That is not how you introduce new people to the hobby! I don't care about whatever 40K lore you're ripping off!
I mean sometimes there are players or Dm's Tha condemn the actions of a pc regardless if it makes sense from the pov of the pov or not, so saying "it's what my Caracter would do" isn't necessarily bad
Yeah, the grim dark one definitely sucks. And sounds like that DM definitely missed what grimdark is supposed to be. Yes, it's harsh and will probably quash any real hopes given enough time. But seeing that as the goal is incorrect. Grimdark is about the struggle to keep going, to keep that light in the darkness for just a bit longer. How even if one's attempts mean nothing in the end, the attempt is what matters. Even then, that isn't for everyone, and for those who may be interested, you don't give it to an actual newbie. Just always get annoyed when someone tries to make grimderp instead of grimdark. I get similarly annoyed when grimdark is thrown out just being the way it is.
If the eight rerolls happens the one time in a campaign then its a joke of its own because holy shit, 7 failed rolls in a row is a riot in the right company. More often than that is an issue though, yeah.
Every time there is a rule issue we set up a little court. Another player and I are the most knowledgeable when it comes to the rules as written, we plead our case to the DM, be it a ruling he made or something we wish to remind him off, he makes an now educated decision and then we continue.
"Racial Languages". Even in Tolkein, "Elven" split into different dialects and languages. But in D&D, an elf born in the slums of the game world equivalent of Dublin, Ireland, learns the same "Elven" as an elf born in the game world's equivalent of the Japanese Imperial Palace. Language, like values, should be cultural, not species.
Given a D&D elf alive today could have met an elf who in turn met an elf who was older than the invention of writing, I'm honestly not sure how we should expect their language to drift. It's like your japanese elf shows up in Dublin, and he and your Dublin elf were college roommates in Baghdad 700 years ago.
@@nicholascarter9158We’ll see language split all the time cuz most language isn’t standardized. For most of human history actually it was like this. There was no standard for how a word was spelt till we made dictionaries. All language is at its core is interpretive as well. Also dialects would form unless the language is constructed. If a god bestowed elves with their language then it wouldn’t have fuck ups in it. Nowadays one of the strictest languages in the world is french and even that was changed pretty dramatically when it was creolized in Haiti. Jamaican english as well is a distinct language and not that old. I can kinda see elves being snooty about their language though lmao. “This is the correct way to say worcestershire”
@@crassiewassie8354 I mean, Elvish is actually like the second language they've used. Espraur is the current language elves use in the forgotten realms & an older language existed & is basically only used by extremely ancient people. By the fifteenth century DR, it's by most elves semi-forgotten & not used anymore. Elvish also has things that are slang & considered more modern, so elvish seems to change a little & evolve to be able to describe things. Most slang seems to revolve around half-elves, describing other races & humanity. So, like, for elves having to make up words & concepts for society's revolving around them & them coming back & making words to describe concepts that exist outside traditional elven society.
For DM's out there that want to play in homebrew worlds, but players complain about not having this or that in the game. For Session 0 or a Pre-Session play Dawn of Worlds first. This is a 12 page rule-book game free download on line that you and your players can use to create a world all on your own. Each person gets to add features, events, species, etc. to the world thru 3 historic periods. After that if what that Player wanted in the world is not there, IT'S THEIR FAULT!
8:20 I have a DM that's like this. He really hated my idea of a Assimar tiefling, amd really sulked when I pointed out it was legit in a official book 😅
7:24 I think this just comes from people not wanting to learn another system. I think the most egregious of this I've ever seen is people trying to play Cyberpunk in DND but it's like Cyberpunk is a tabletop game and has been for a long time. If you're making your own cyberpunk setting, cool, go ahead, but if you're explicitly using Night City and characters and lore from the Cyberpunk series, just look into playing Cyberpunk 2020 or RED.
Anything chaotic stupid always put me off. The amount of Himbos and female equivalent in DND always irked me as no one is literally this stupid. It is a caricature of people making stupid choices for comedic effect but in dnd i often find this so dumb I lose interest. I can understand a character coming as dumb due to language barriers, actually being illiterate, or having some reason for being rather unintelligent. However, playing a character like your ben stiller from zoolander immediately breaks me from the immersion and ruins the experience for me, and always leads to issues for the party that are not the fun kind of issues to play out in game.
What if it's the case of someone being dumb for the sake of roleplay, but is actually serious or does a inteligente thing when it matters for the sake of the plot? Becuase i kinda tend to do some dumb things, but actually try to play smart in serious moments or moments of tension
Playing stupidity right requires knowing realistic limits and group dynamics. Grog works for Critical roll but may not work in another group. I'm playing a Trippki (PF2E verson of Grippli aka frog man) who has very broken language due to growing up in the wild. And my group us finding out that he isn't academically smart but he is very wise and surprisingly smart when it comes to science (due to him observing how things work in nature and having to make it work by himself).
If it actually helps the story in any way or is a vital part of the characters backstory that can be explained I'm usually ok with it. The problem is the amount of people who simply wish to cause chaos and just claim, "Intelligence is my dump stat so he's an idiot." I've seen stupid characters actually played well and they are a lot of fun, but I'm specifically meaning the himbos that serve no other purpose than to cause problems.
Railroading and WMCWD (what my character would do) gets a bad rep. The group I play with would have no idea what or where to go and basically need to be almost told. Also regarding wmcwd, played a life cleric escorting an npc and their daughter to safety during combat and was scolded by my party for doing so. Reason why I did it was because me and another player worked together to revive them after they just recently died and my character wanted to ensure that didn’t happen again.
Riddles and puzzles. Whenever quest passing depends on how good is player in riddles irl, not even charscter int, its horrible, it's not dicez not RP, battle or even what is in your sheet, and yakes time. And damn only 1 correct answer is even worse than nat20 only requirements. So whenever there is shpynx with riddle, sorry DM, but i roll to seduce
I personally think puzzles can be ok. As it's a way to challenge people, but have an alternative solution of no one knows the puzzle or a way that can work, but with some different results, that way the game can progress. And puzzles are the hardest thing, more than combat by a lot
Imagine being so close-minded to basic criticism that you force someone to fail just because they tried to find a way around the problem.@DellikkilleD
The idea that attack magic is the only worthwhile magic. Looking at you fireball spammers. Try some illusion magic dangit! (Im so tired of calculating npc collateral damage)
Thinking that restricting sources as a DM is opressive. If youa re a beginner DM, you have every right to limit everything to the Core rulebook, and do not let anyone convince you otherwise.
I'm not a new DM, but my stance on it is unless you can show me the source material you're wanting to use as a physical book or a PDF, we're not using it.
Exploration and travel aren’t dangerous, and add no Exhaustion on top of it. It mitigates expose of the Ranger and strategic planning. Ambushing and counter-ambushing can be quite fun.
i don't know if it's popular but i think the concept of "X cards" is stupid as it undermines the idea of a session 0 (or you know? just talking things out like adults) and can easily be abused by bad actors to cheat.
If you're playing a little kender in the party that's always trying to steal stuff from the party members, I'm not going to stop the party from stringing your character up in a dungeon, taking all your stuff, and baiting a gelatinous cube to come make sure you're never a problem again.
I do not like how the martial/caster divide is being discussed. Yes, casters can do heavy stuff and martials do not have the access to a similar toolbox. That is something to discuss. But where I disagree to the entire notion is that casters and martials don't need to be on the same playing field. They are good at different things and are supposed to work together as a team. A caster is powerful as long as they have spell slots. Most martials are efficient most of the time with most of their resources only needing a short rest to replenish. Casters are great sprinters while martials are amazing at running a marathon. Different foes require different skills. Sometimes martials are useless for dmg, sometimes you have a fire sorcerer in a fight against a red dragon.
Agreed casters have their weaknesses. The issue is those weaknesses were based on a rule that so many parties dont use properly, the adventuring day. Thr same reason people worry over warlocks having spells on a short rest
It only works in theory, never in practice. Casters can do everything a martial already can, plus a ton of more stuff a martial will never be able to do. Not to mention all the ways casters can bypass their limited ressources with magic items, which is for some reason never brought up.
The thing is, a lot of people don't even want martials to be equally powerful as casters, only for them to have more options and fun abilities to use. Even in real life we have hundreds, if not thousands, of manuals/books/scrolls/whatever/etc. of different martial techniques, moves, stances, tactics, and a multitude of other things. Why is martial combat so dumbed down in DnD where it's basically "I attack"; "Now I attack twice"; "Now I make an attack of opportunity!" and other, similarly basic things? Let martial classes have different combat stances that synergize in different ways with fighting styles, learn different moves or techniques that can be used between player and foe in a dynamic back and forth of who tries to get the upper-hand, tactical abilities that allow allies to combo with each other to impactful results. I know there are some feats/class/subclass features that allow for that, but they are few and far between, and so disparate that you don't have an appropriate level of customization on your martial character to match the elegant complexities of martial combat.
@@f145hr3831jr I see that brought up a lot and I just don't agree with it. A wizard *can* replicate other classes in combat but they have to burn resources to do so. A fighter or rogue can run in and just fuck shit up without having to really plan or burn resources to do so. Like yeah sure, a wizard can use knock to bypass locked doors. Did they prepare it? Do they have a rogue? How many locks are there? Why bother wasting a spell slot on Knock when you can have the rogue make the check with Expertise? Same outcome, usually. The only real criticism of the martial-caster divide is out of combat utility. Magic is magic, and the wizard being able to teleport to different planes, clone themselves, or create simulacrums is not something you can really give a martial class without it not being a martial class anymore. It's why I almost always give the martials in my games armies, organizations, or factions to lead. Because then they can affect the world and call upon *people* as their resource.
System purists who adamantly refuse to play anything but the one, maybe two systems they have decided to fixate on. I know nowadays it’s mostly people who like 5e refusing to branch out, but I’m juuust old enough to remember when people insisted on hacking 3.5 into everything instead of just learning a different system. It’s like watching someone try to hammer in a screw because “learning to use a screwdriver is too hard”
Every week or so, there's a thread on reddit with a new player asking "Hey, my party doesn't have a healer, is that a problem?" And almost every single response is "No, play what you want." That's just really setting that player up for failure. Not having access to a free or cheap way to bring someone back from 0 HP is going to majorly bankrupt the party at low levels of play, and will not really stop being a problem at higher levels. Taking Magic Initiate or the Healer Feat, or just being an Aasimar is such low investment to majorly improve the party's quality of life. No one is asking you to keep shoving Cure Wounds up the barbarian's ass 24/7, but everyone will love you when you can healing word the barbarian back to his feet after he took the dragon's breath weapon at point blank range, even if you can only do it once.
2:46 I actually recently had an eye-opening experience in regards to this just recently while trying out Monster of the Week. In this system, depending on your hunter archetype (your character class), you have a set list of suggestions for History to choose for each of your fellow player's characters to have with yours. During the introduction, it is a necessary step to collectively determine said histories for all players, and work with the other players to do so. Or, in other words - the default expectation is that everyone in the party already knows each-other, at least in passing, and not that the first session is their first time meeting. And honestly? I love that. It gives me actual incentive to roleplay with and help out these people whom in real life are strangers to me(at least for now).
“Practice Rolls”. Buddy, you roll when the DM says so. If you’re trying to manipulate your dice, it’s called cheating. If you wanna just rattle them around in your hand without letting go, gets annoying, but I’ll allow it.
Got one; when you upfront establish a type of magic works differently in your homebrew world, then your players try to correct you on it like you read the books wrong. 7:45 Oh I know I've rambled about this one before, and I still hate how the oversimplification of 5th edition sacrificed customization depth for broader audience entry. Similarly I've also played in a group that was so stubbornly rigid in using the books as they said like that 3rd edition rant, and I've also left such groups for being boring. The wargaming background I've barely thought about, but I know I've seen the implementation of it outside of combat too, and probably contributes to the failing forward issue.
I hate the idea that the Lawful alignment has anything to do with following the laws of whatever land you're in. also that 3.5 player at 9:02 clearly didn't interact with the community in any way. I was playing and DMing throughout the entire run of 3.5 and the wotc boards were full of very active constant talk between us and everyone was very aware that always never meant always. One of our mascots was Ted the Flayer a comedian who popped up to make inappropriately timed jokes. Hell on of the biggest threads was 1,001 Ways to Kill the Tarrasque which can only be killed in exactly one way within the rules.
My thing is impossible situations, and failure to enforce parties supporting their members. If i'm pinned behind cover by a team of crossbowmen out of range of my spells, and my teammates have like 12 tools to help me, there should he some consequences to leaving me behind. Not for lore or story reasons, just for not being a dick reasons. This has happened to me before. Also, making something that isn't explicitly in the rules impossible even when it's supported in lore, is narratively interesting, and isn't game breaking. Hate that shit. It's like a creativity ban.
6:25 - and also casually carry around about 2 tons of stuff without feeling burdened, several times more with succesful checks, survive nuclear blasts, move basically at the speed of light, fight an army of normal humans one by one and winning after several days of battle, regenerate wounds during the fight, being basically unable to miss an attack - when not straight up punching through armor, they always find an opening in the armor, and other stuff basically worthy of a greek epic... yeah, and also slicing up the first guy in less than 6 seconds after most likely resisting everything they have thrown at them. More stuff to do doesn't mean they are inherently cooler and the OP is an idiot.
IWMCWD is a matter of maturity, pure and simple. It is as much over-villainized as it is true. We have (had) two dudes in our campaign look at IWMCWD in very interesting ways: Both are veteran/optimizer/power gamer-y types of dudes, both are very insistant on playing their builds and characters to the fullest - sometimes to an extent bordering on the impractical and slightly inconsiderate, since we are currently a 16th lvl campaign, and both if them ran casters. Yay. Still, mostly not their fault. Dude 1 comes in later in to the campaign. His first character - an android samurai that decided her defining character feature would be she would become a.complete materialist, because 'it is fascinating' died, so he come in with a new one. Detailed backstory, npcs, themed, yet still insanely powerful wizard build. Main objective - has been looking foe his girlfriend-wife for the last 1000-ish years (time mumbo-jumbo, he is also a chronurgist). Proceeds to progressively play this jaded wizard dude as an ever more consistent annoyance to anything and anyone around him 'I've just met you guys, I have my goals, you have yours - we are just around eachother for safety in numbers'. He touches stuff all the time 'You can't tell me not to touch stuff. I don't care you think it's dangerous. I found it - it's mine'. You steal it back from him 'Never steal my stuff, or I will kill you!' We spent literal hours of our lives dealing with random ahit he has lifted off royal palaces and such. We have a talk with dude - gets kind of abrasive, knocks it down a peg, but interactions are strained till the end. It all crescendos with his charavter reacting poorly to us resurrecting the progenitors of all vampires, since wizard's race got wiped out by vampires. Actual good rolepllay by dude 1, but ends with him betraying the party and a lengthy and tedious PvP moment, since 5e doesn't want people having fun past a certain point. It is all resolved with minimal damage to everyone. Yay. Later, we are on our way to make a big dimension-time-jump-thing, because the world needs saving, but breefly meet up with his girlfriend-wife. Dude decides 'Aye, quest fulfilled, IWMCWD' and retires the character, instead of doing the obvious 'I have some important crap to do, but I'll come back for you. After not getting his way exactly in a mini camapign I ran for the DM to take a break, leaves and never comes back. Dude 2 has been with us from the start, has gone through several characters by completing their arcs. His current one he was very excited for - he is way into Warhammer 40k, so he wants to make sort of a blend of factions and insert into out game world. Backstory out the wazoo. First session we run into a village plagued by a disease. What does his character sugggest? Burn the sick, along with the children, of course - they will only spread this thing further. Great roleplay. In-game stand-off ensues, he backs down. We run the rest of session without a hitch. After the session he goes and stumps us with 'Yeah, sorry, my lady isn't a good fit with the party - what should do with her?' In the end, we agree he tones down the the 'purge with fire' part of her, and all should be good. He is still playing her more than a year later. Bottom line: it's a matter of if you wanna be selfish and want others to behold how 'amazing' you are at the game, or if you are going to concede to the greater fact that TTRPGs are a collective experience first and foremost, and that personal satisfaction - while important and something to aim for - comes second to group enjoyment and cohesion.
I know someone in the video is already picking a fight about this, but railroading feels bad. When the players' choices don't much matter, and the module just shuffles them along from one empty shell of a scene to the next empty shell of a scene, and the players will roll some dice and they don't have any meaningful interaction in the game? That's railroading and it's an empty experience. I see it often at conventions and it's arguably necessary for filling a strict time slot. I've learned that any D&D game shorter than 2 hours will be empty carbs that are best reserved for ultra-new players who aren't looking for anything satisfying. But any other campaign had better involve the players as participants, not actors following the script in a boring preset play.
I’m currently a one shot DM (hopefully I can get a campaign going eventually) and I always like to do a mix of RP and combat. RP at the beginning, intro to the quest, etc., then you’re doing multiple encounters of combat plus exploring whatever dungeon/area you’re in. Of course, you may RP during combat and exploration. My players love my quests and honestly I’m just so happy they enjoy it.
I hate DMs who say the narrative supersedes all, if you’re more concerned about telling your story than making sure everyone is having fun you probably shouldn’t be a DM.
When the DM is way too attached to a character, NPC or otherwise. I’m in a game with a new DM that’s trying to make their favorite NPC come off as a burdened but decisive leader, but they’re playing him in a way that makes him seem like a major asshole. We’re all playing the DM’s characters who had their minds scrambled around years back and are supposedly a top rank adventure party. We’re all allowed to play the characters in any way we want, but when we met the NPC, they kept ridiculing us for not being battle-ready enough and one of the players even left after session one. We started just seeing the character as this needlessly mean douche and naturally started to not like him. Sessions later when the party was still reacting to him in a way the DM didn’t want, they started feeling personally attacked and it took us out of game to explain our side of things about how not liking a character doesn’t mean we’re against them. If they want to DM, I really hope they can learn to not expect the party to love a character as much as the DM running the game does and to separate characters from self.
Hate is a little strong, but I don't like how so many people would rather spend time homebrewing 5e rather than spending the same time learning to play a system that has what they're looking for.
6:36 This! *SO MUCH THIS!!* I don't care if you like roleplaying as a clown, or as your interpretation of the Joker. If the session has a more serious setting and story, please save your joke characters for less serious settings. I'm trying to get immersed, and anyone who does this is ruining it.
What are the other definitions of metagaming? Metagaming is acting on Information your character doesn’t know and shouldn’t be able to like knowing to rush out and save the other half of a split party with no communication
I guess it would be more on the definition of "Information you know that your character doesn't". Does your character, for example, know how many hit points they have at any given time?
@@ilovethelegendyes, because the hit points are an abstraction of damage, and they know how wounded they are. Like they don’t know it in terms of numbers but they do know it.
Regarding the "Failing Forwards" trope, I think they're confusing the concept with failing upwards. Failing in a forward direction means that no matter the actions of the players, the story will always progress towards a conclusion of any kind, whether it's good or bad. If the party wipes in combat and die, that's failing forwards to the end of the campaign really quickly. If the party fails a perception check to find a secret door that leads to the end of the dungeon, giving the cultists enough time to summon a demon that then breaks out and fights the party, that's failing forwards to a fight that's likely to be more difficult than if they succeeded the check. Failing upwards means that if they fail, they're given advantages that are almost as good or even arguably better than if they succeed. Such as if they wipe to monsters in a dungeon, they're woken up with a long rest in the BBEG's room, where they have restraints with a relatively easy check to break out of to start a fight. So it'd be potentially better to fail before the fight than to succeed since they'd most likely not have the long rest to get back their resources. The core concept of failing forwards just means that you don't let the story completely stop in its tracks just because the party fails to take the correct course of action, by not having plots that revolve entirely around the players taking certain actions. If the goal of a story is to get a magical artefact at the bottom of a dungeon, and they get completely stuck in a room not knowing how to figure out a puzzle. That's probably the best example of a scenario where you don't let the players fail forwards. But even then, you can add other elements, such as a rival treasure hunting team or roaming dungeon monsters, that will leave the story in motion. But it's also a valid decision for the DM to just require the players to find another path through, such as backtracking all the way out to find someone that specializes in the type of room they got stuck in.
Failing forward can be too much if done wrong, but not doing it can be way worse. "The party lost the fight... they all died, the end" is not how most people want their campaign to end. Also, screw the guy that said "don't allow x is a bad DM" that guy is a dick. Lot's of things are straight up worth banning at character creation, some for being bad for dms to work around like flying races, others for being too overused that you just want to curb it, like sharpshooter feat. Sometimes it's good to introduce rules to ban stuff like earning armor proficiency above what the lowest class you have gave you to begin with, just to force mages to stay with robes and mage armor instead of getting a level into fighter for a suit of plate.
2:30 well, very depends on DM and usage of optional/homebrew rules. Cause such conversations can literally kill the games, when you discuss for 40 minutes action which is worse than just gave up on smth which isnt even a big deal. If DM says "nah magic fog telepors you anyways but only you" or lvl1 npc casting wish is of course discussable, BUT "no i actully can be under water for 10 minutes" or "nah quicksand is not supposed to require str check" or "yes this 2 stuck, its not said so but it ovious it gives this combo despite i have disadvantage" Are annoying, or in some case player makes a "genious" plan and is mad when plan does not work as he/she thought its supposed to and tries to prove it, had such player, even after other pakyers said "dude this at least particially is not supposed to work by RAW" he insisted. Such discussions takes so much time, so they better not to take place in 4 hours session which is once in a week
"My players did this one tthing I didn't like, so I'll flush this campaign amd it's rules just to get back at them. Talking it out with them like a normal person? What's that?"
I think people misunderstand something about failing forward because what was described bailing out the players. Failing forward is “you unlock the door after some time, but as you open the door you a patrolling guard notices the door open”. Out of the frying pan into the fire kind of stuff.
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
"It's what my character would do"
Perfect response: "why?"
My favorite instance of this, was we had a wizard that was about to fireball a group of dwarven refuges for kicks, and I (basically barbarian) attacked him, and told him I WOULD kill him if he tried to harm the migrants. (My character was standing right next to him, and he would provoke an attack if he persisted to cast)
He was a little sore "but it's what my character would do!"
"Yeah? Well this is what mine would do, we literally stop evil wizards on a regular basis... how does your character respond?"
His character chose to restrain himself under threat of death ;D
And honestly, I recommend this in general, if a party member "character" acts like a villain, or acts against the party, treat them like the enemy they are, people generally will rethink what their "character" would do
@@paulkocherhans608 in my Theros game, the warlock just crossed the line HARD and the cleric is genuinely considering killing him.
Thing is though, that works out perfectly in the narrative, and both of the players rolled with it perfectly.
If you want to have a “what my character would do” rule in your game, it CAN work as long as everyone is in on it. HOWEVER, that rule comes with a secondary requirement: You must be willing to accept the consequences of your character’s choices and how they alter your character’s fate.
People in real life don't explain why they do the things they do. "Why" is an even worse response. Just proceed and disrupt his spell
@pimc172 why are you, a lawful good paladin, trying to bully a goblin by repeatedly bringing them back from death saves? (True example...)
Yes, they tried to steal from your party, but they are absolutely terrified of you and have no plausible reason for them to know much about the cult you are searching for. They are clearly poor. (Orphan/beggar... that part, I forget...)
@@mikukurisaki3413 If that’s what his character would do, then do what his deity would do: Take away his powers 😜
Anyone who brings up or compares something to Mercer and/or “Critical Role” as though that is THE golden standard/end all of DnD.
Don’t get me wrong, I love CR, I have great respect for Mercer. But he is by no means THE standard everyone should be compared to…
That and anyone who brings up Mercer as the reason players think all DMs should be professional voice actors.
Now I agree with this, however I will say that I strive to create something that is of that quality.
Mercer himself even hates it. He made a great comment on Reddit about it years back
It's because it was designed to the lowest common denominator so it has a wide range of success and makes players feel clever...
Hate's strong, but my least favorite trope is the horny bard. I try to do interesting things with my bards, and usually make them more dedicated to the arts than to getting some tail. But I can't even mention that I'm going to play a bard without people insisting that I'm gonna boink every NPC ever, and making jokes about such even when I clarify that's not the case. now, I'm not adverse to flirty characters in general, and half of my characters like to at least flirt, but what I don't like is the idea being forced upon me even when I don't want it to be. Also, most horndog characters I've seen have been the damn rogues, sorcerers and warlocks.
Fully agreed, I just wanted my Bard to be a cinnamon himbo, singing tunes to cheer people up (think a male version of Giselle from Enchanted) but noooo.
THIS. I ran a campaign of warforged in Eberron-- all the players were constructs. The bard kept trying to play into the 'horny bard' stereotype and I kept telling them, "You don't have the physical equipment. You don't have any sex drive. You are a construct!" Their response, "...but I'm a bard." It took time and me urging them to be a cheerleader, rather than a horny stereotype.
My pet peeve relates to this: treating a class as a job description rather than a skillset. If you can make something fit the framework of a "bard" it can be a bard. A military officer with a deep breadth of knowledge, powerful ability to command and give orders, inspiring to those around him, some knowledge of marching songs and such, and a smattering of odd but helpful magic. That can easily be a bard. A dispossessed noble who has an affable attitude, is well liked by those around them, always has a joke on hand, had some prior training with music they didn't pursue and knowledge due to their noble upbringing? Can also be a bard.
You don't need to be Bardy McBard from Bardschool who Bards everywhere all the barding time, because their only interest is barding (and maybe music).
@@Syfa considering the colleges of whispers, spirits, swords, and most recently dancing, even the use of music/singing is optional, as long as your actions somehow inspire others.
@@kou7191 I played a halfling painter bard not too long ago who painted all of his spell effects into existence. Very fun to roleplay as almost a Bob Ross type, definitely NOT a horny bard.
"It's what my character would do!" Should you make in-game decisions based on what your character would do? YES. You should ALSO have a character who works well in groups and is task-oriented.
Depends on the game. DnD is very much a team focused game that falls apart if people aren’t on the same page. But other systems like World of Darkness or Shadowrun practically have betrayal and intrigue baked into the system (don’t even get me started on Paranoia). So if you’re playing a game where everyone backstabbing each other is to be expected, go wild
Nah
I mean, sometimes 'It's what my character would do!' pops up even in characters who do work well in groups and are task-oriented.
Case in point, had a character who was the primary brains, Face, stealth and utility skills guy of his party, got along really well with everyone in said party and consistently put the most effort out of all them into helping the group reach their goals...
But he was *also* the only member of the team inclined towards commit heinous crimes, would attack enemies vastly out of the party's league, and start genuine PvP moments, because under his peppy, hardworking friendly persona, my PC was a highly paranoid and reckless CN/CE mood swinger with 'stab first if cornered' tendencies, and though I put a LOT of work into designing him so the Good aligned party would be able to keep him in check (an abysmal CON score to ensure he was too frail to ever consider splitting from the party or win in 1v1 PvP, an infactuation towards genuine heroic types, fanatical loyalty towards loved ones to prevent said PvP from escalating past 'panic induced' lashing out, an 'in need of rescue' introduction that ensured the party became loved ones in record time, etc), and as much as I'm sure my table liked him since he was the backbone of the team's non combat stuff, I kept double checking with everyone if I was going overboard, and his 'instigator' tendencies also made him really, REALLY good for the DM to get the plot moving and for everyone to bounce their PCs off of (the barb/pally and monk/barb had a fun little detective/therapist subplot happening once they realised that their beloved 'plans buddy' was a compulsive liar who was very much Not Ok, the very aloof bard had to actually interact with the rest of the party to ensure her 'pet idiot' stayed alive, the oathbreaker pally opened up about how her former lover and liege abused her Crown Oath for evil until she snapped when it became apparent my PC was crushing on her, etc)...
DAMN did he force me to sigh before declaring 'It's what my character would do!' to everyone's distress (including my own) a truly stupid amount of times XD
@@FaisLittleWhiteRaven This is how you play that character correctly. Too bad too many people just use the phrase as an excuse to be an AHole.
@@jeremiahlewis410 Thank you very much for the flattery!
But I think as much as people do abuse the phrase to be That Guy, it is worth pointing out that it can also surface due to inexperience RPing, an incorrect read of what disruptive things will work well with the party, and unfortunately timed miscommunication issues(1) so as much as 'it's what my character would do' is a bit of a red flag, it's kinda important to keep in mind that even if the person using it is genuinely messing up, it's not always out of malice.
(1) Case in point, ran afowl of this hard during a very important session with my previously mentioned PC: DM had the BBEG make an 'appearance atop a newby building' to show us/the PCs that 'you got her attention, your decoy plan is working, keep it up! =D' and everyone else instantly understood that... Except me, because I was in full RP mode, my PC was the paranoid, tactics guy and seeing the BBEG unexpectedly so soon after the plan was starting instantly had me fight/flight mode where my brain went 'Oh shit, BBEG has just cornered ALL of our decoys, now knows where our base is and is going to wipe us all out while telling her forces to ignore all distractions!!!' which. Naturally. Had me instantly declaring that I was breaking cover to try stabbing her in the face since well, it was 100% what my character would do in the face of seemingly imminent death and I though all our plans being dramatically dashed to pieces in an instant/a forced loss before some kind of escape or something was the point of the scene.
...Needless to say a LOT of yelling and confusion ensued (and to make it clear, I said the classic line in full 'wtf why are you all yelling at me?!' anger during all that so I was NOT helpful there >////
3:55 _I'll run the game in a setting that happens to don't have X, so I don't allow X at character creation_ is a problem if you keep it a secret until the players have already signed up to the game.
"I am a Triton wizard. Since books and water don't mix, my spellbook is actually made of rare seashells with the spells carved into them. I have already finished the backstory and artwork."
"Cool, but there are no Tritons in my game, think of something else."
"Okay, here are the revised backstory and artwork for the Sea Elf wizard."
"No Sea Elfs either."
"Water Genasi then? You allowed the other player a Fire Genasi."
"Water Genasi are fine, but there are also no Wizards in my game world."
Formulate what you do and do not allow for character creation from the start. You don't want players to show up with characters that are completely within the rules but not allowed in your game world and you don't want players to ask for permission to use character abilities every time they level up.
I get your point. But I'll also point out how annoying it is as a DM when all the players turn up with their premade special snowflakes and have zero connections to the plot or each other. One reason I really like character creation at session zero is to go over expectations such as banned races/ classes but also making characters that will get the most out of the campaign.
@@Badartist888 Yes, that is why you should explain you will be making characters in session 0 in the pitch.
Every GM/DM that I've ever known that pulled the Secret Rules crap isn't a GM/DM anymore...at least not for any of the Player's I know anyway...
ALL of the ones that had Campaigns last more than 1 session did the "Here's the rough Campaign Synopsis, the list of material NOT available in my game and the House Rules; Characters will be made at 1st Session." while putting the group together so everyone both knows what to expect and has time to think about what kind of Character they want to play before the 1st Session ever happens and by having everyone make their Character in front of everyone else, it helps reduce Min-Maxing as well as fudged Stat Rolls...
6:51 - In a game I was DMing years ago, the players were having trouble deciding exactly what they were going to do next. One of them literally looked me dead in the eye and said, “Just railroad us to what we’re supposed to do next.” This was actually seconded by at least one other player and none of the rest of them protested. Like anything else, it can be a useful tool when it’s used and not abused.
Agreed. There is nothing inherently wrong with an on rails adventure.
When I was really young playing video games, I'd prefer those types to open world games. It wasn't until I was interested in role playing I began to have more fun in an open world setting, table top or video game.
To be fair, if your party is asking you to "railroad them to the next adventure," that usually means you're not giving them good cues to find the adventure on their own. To quote a futurama episode, "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."
one of the best things my dm does is have a magical newspaper company called "The Reading Railroad" that you can always find in your back pocket if you're stuck on what to do or where to go. it has interesting events that might pertain to plot or sidequests in it, but so far we've never had to pull it out.
Currently struggling in a campaign due to this. Granted she is a new DM, but plenty of dead ends due to the narrative lacking clues, her waiting for us to ask the right questions (unprompted), or unnecessary rolls that stop the narrative completely on fail.
When a decent rail infrastructure exists, taking the train can be pleasant way to travel.
The classic
Barbarian: yeah I fallow the party and don't say anying let me know when we're in a fight *pulls out phone
so... your mad at someone that enjoys a specific part of the game, and prefers to not be a disruption during the rest?
i am barbarian i don't want to rp that much but every "combat focused" games i played ended up being 3 hours of rp 10 minutes of combate so bet my ass i'm pulling my phone out if i'm alweys doing what everyone likes for 3 hours
@@DellikkilleD Being on your phone and not paying attention to the game IS being a disruption. It tells the DM that they have no interest in the campaign and that all of their hard work prepping for the session and planning the scenario is completely wasted on them, which kills DM enthusiasm for running the game. It also killing any sense of storytelling immersion when one character is basically nothing but a meat puppet that suddenly starts doing things when there's a fight. If all you enjoy is combat and have no interest in the other two pillars of play, you'll probably be better served by looking for a new group that's a better fit if your current group uses the other pillars of play.
@@siluda9255 Sounds like you're in a bad fit for a group if all that you want is combat, but only get 10 minutes of it out of three hours of play. As a DM myself, when you pull out your phone, I can all but guarantee you that your DM is thinking, "Why are they even here?"
Follow*
You know what is worse than players never challenging the DM on ruling? Players who do it all the time. Above all when it's obvious they don't do it in good faith.
Or the players actually want to be allowed to use their basic character abilities.
@@schwarzerritter5724 Claiming you have abilities or advantages you don't have every 5 minutes is not the same as the DM forgetting about your abilities.
@@schwarzerritter5724 I don't think that's what he was talking about. There's definitely good faith challenges and not many people have a problem with that. I think the original commentator was talking about what I call powergaming (not in the building an optimized character way, in the "I'm going to squeeze every little advantage I can get by bending the wording of a rule backwards, twisting it into a pretzel knot, and call for rule of cool if that fails, and if that doesn't get me what I want I'm just going to insult the GM and tell him it's bad game design.... oh and I'm going to do it every five minutes" way). I think most people call that rules lawyering, but I usually avoid that term because except for the one former player I based that sentence on, I've always encouraged my players to keep me honest. If I have a houserule that's one thing, but if I'm just misunderstanding something that's another entirely.
@@ADT1995I think that the term ‘min-maxing’ will serve well to define what you’re referring to. 🙂
In my experience (and this is a bit of a personal one), the only time I really see rules lawyering in bad faith is when the player is routinely ****** by sudden and spontaneous rule changes or just straight up being told no by the GM constantly.
I once had 7, 5 or so hour sessions in a row where literally everything I did was ****blocked by our DM.
LITERALLY.
EVERYTHING.
It started when he forced me to draw 7 cards from a deck of many things because I rolled a nat 1 on an insight check on an NPC who wanted to play a game with them. I got good things being money, 4 lvls, a mech and then drew my bads, a card that gave me -2 to all my saving throws and the card that sucks your soul. What followed was 3 sessions of me being gone while my party got to play with the mech. Then my DM took away the mech as I was being brought back so all I got was to watch other people have fun with what I lucked out on. Next we went into a dungeon for 4 sessions in which every single enemy throughout the entire dungeon was immune to everything in my kit and I never once found a single corpse or skeleton until the very end (I was a Necro). The few enemies that weren’t immune to me were “put there to punish our fighter because he keeps rushing into fights”, teleported past him and rolled my exact max hp in damage on a single attack before my turn ever arrived.
Games like this, is why I began rules lawyering. Because if I can’t, then there will never, ever be a time where I can contribute.
The "Lawful Good is Boring" attitude. Not everyone wants to play the dashing rogue or the edgy tiefling rebel.
Some people just want to play the Knight in Shining Armor, the classic good guy.
some people dont know how to make a Heroic character interesting, so they asume that the archeype is the problem and not them.
Is not for everione but they make very cool characters
You can do both. Our first Rogue in 5E, was basically Animated Batman.
@@elhoteldeloserrantes5056 That's also an outgrowth of the Lawful Good players not knowing how to let the less than lawful good characters have their fun. Superman knew when to let Batman do his work and to accept that his lectures were falling on deaf ears in most timelines. The Paladin has to know when to take the Rogue's lie at face value and go down to the market to look for truth potions instead of insisting the prisoner not be tortured.
I think that is less a D&D specific issue since i see the sentiment in regards to media in general. A lot of characters people like have layers that stop them from just being a pure lawful good, they have flaws that make it clear they aren't a 100% good person. I think that is what people want: someone who feels REAL, with nuance. Not a token good guy ripped straight out of some Fairy Tale somewhere.
Perhaps having them a bad moment here and there where the BAD part of their humanity cracks through, helps stop people thinking they are boring. For example the good guy snapping is a good way to do it by showing that they are lawful good, but you test their patience they can do something borderline evil, not because of changing values but because they are a human, and humans can react volatily when emotionally provoked.
Also i think the fact that people are burned out of these character in TV, Anime and Manga doesn't help, to the point they don't want to see any more of that type of character.
I hate it when I have a village of a specific race, implied to be tribal and centered around a singular culture, only to have someone complain about it being 'racist' that all the people of this village follow the same ideology, because it's a 'stereotype'. They all live within five minutes of each other, in a small, exclusionary village. Of course they're going to be really similar to each other in terms of beliefs!
Personally I really despise it because it means you can never play to a stereotype and have to always play *AGAINST* it or else be considered racist. If a town is, say, refusing to allow a band of orcs in because the local lord says that orcs are little more than violent thugs and monsters, you don't need to know anything more to know that the noble is in the wrong and orcs are actually deep and complex and not always violent and such. You never get anyone doing stuff like, say, having orcs indeed be a heavily martial society but there being more to it, like honor and facing a challenge, than just brutish violence. The noble will always be wrong for being 'racist' but it never gets asked if there's a good reason for why he does what he does or if he might actually be *right*. A broken clock is right twice a day. Imagine a plot where the first group of orcs is, indeed, little more than a bunch of violent thugs and it's the hippy dippy idiots who go 'not all orcs' that let them in and the party has to fight them off, but the NEXT group that comes along sees no honor in fighting a bunch of civilians just trying to live their lives and the noble, justified from the first encounter, then attacks *them*. That's a lot more complex than the overly simplistic moralizing you'd see most of the time.
Yeah I liked when my half-elf was given strange fearful looks by people in a town which was terrorized by barbarian wild elves. to them, pointy ears = eat your babies
@@Snowthree The Orc worship of Gruumsh One-Eye influence Orcs into being evil.
See in my world orcs are actually demonically corrupted humans. Ergo, a good reason for them all to be evil and violent. Nobody is racist now!
This is "It's what my character would do" but for world building.
The "horny Bard". This has somehow become THE standard expectation for Bards. If that's what you want to play, that's great. But a performer can be so much more! Singers, musicians, dancers, story tellers, heck they could be actors or even painters. Many classes have archetypes but why did the Bard expectation get stuck with wanting to get laid being their only motivator?
I suppose it says a lot about the person playing said bard.
@@MoonManMoonMan Or about the rest of the group if they try to push the bard in that drawer.
I played a spirits bard (violin) which sad songs only atracted the dead. No party material for a night at the tavern 😂
I played a theater-type music and acting bard in a campaign once, and when I revealed that my character wasn't a "horny bard" bard, everyone at the table was surprised!
Yeah its so annoying. Bards are such a diverse and interesting class and the general public thinks of them one way
I dislike the idea that the DM has to run a campaign world which includes every single race and class in the PH and supplements.
If a DM has a homebrew world, he or she can prohibit PCs of certain species as simply not existing in this world.
Not every world is a “kitchen sink” of every race and class ever printed in any book ever.
For the longest time, I was entrenched in 3.5 core races only, basically cutting out Tiefling and Dragonborn from 5e core. It was a combination of resisting change and some really iffy feelings on them from bad experiences with alternate options from 3.5 I encountered. I've since come around on them, but I'm still very hesitant around things from other books, like aasimar, firbolg, goblin, kenku, etc. I usually want monster races to just be monsters, and exotic races are typically not something I want to dance around with every new encounter. Plus, I've run into too many who use those either as "human but with these traits" min/max style or "make everything about how unique I am" style. I have found these issues are, to me, exclusively with D&D and Pathfinder. Pretty much every other TTRPG I've dabbled in has solid lore for why things are or are not playable. D&D has too much bloat, I guess, without feeling super cohesive across games people play.
Yeah, you don't have to play in Forgotten Realms. Make your own homebrew world and set your rules for it! Slay, Dungeon Monarch!
But if you DO play Forgotten Realms, be ready to explain and justify your changes. Especially if they're very specific and/or targeted changes...
As someone who’s playing Bard for the first time, I hate the “horny bard” stereotype.
Like, where’s the Lawyer bard? The inspirational speaker bard? The rockstar bard? Not everyone wants to slay a dragon. Some people want to verbally defeat it in an argument.
I have an inspirational orator bard in the works as a back-burner character idea, as well as another one who's a linguist. I also have plans for a character who's a (former) lawyer, but she's a paladin.
My recent bard-like (Pathfinder Envoy, a non-magical social and skill bard) was a flamenco dancer at the town's inn who engaged heavily in social engineering and friend making. She charmed a painter into falling head over heels for her (not magically) and had a whirlwind romance that was the game's main B-plot, had some soap opera melodrama when it turned out he was a vampire, and after convincing him to seek mortality, got married at the end of the campaign.
She was... uh... also a lawyer bard. She ran away from her family's law practice, and it came back to her when she had to act as an NPC's defense lawyer. Iria Birdgirl, Attorney at Law was in fact a real thing that happened.
I actually played a lawyer bard recently in a pathfinder 2 campaign. It was honestly a really fun experience. Everyone was out to murder the big bad while i wanted to drag him to court lol
My Bard character hardly ever flirted and was much more focused on helping people as he was a former Soldier. He was also looking for inspiration in his travels
One thing I don't see talked about enough is that Session 0 is as much for players to bring up their wants and exoectations for the campaign as it is for the DM. It not only helps me understand what my players want, but also helps establish from the get-go that everyone at the table is an active participant with the ability to give input. Also... kind of helps with folks seeing the DM as a collaborator who's also there to have fun, and not just the person facilitating their game.
Another bounty hunter would be more likely to be seen as competition than friend
9:03 ironically 5e stat blocks are more likely to have 0 nuance with alignments while 3.5 very often had the caveat of "usually X alignment". Orcs are listed as just evil in 5e, 3.5 orcs are listed as usually evil.
I don't mind "usually" for mortals; Demons can't be "usually CE" though; if they were any other alignment they wouldn't have been sent to The Abyss.
@@littlegiantj8761 yeah in 3.5 it said "always chaotic evil" for demons.
@@ArvelDreth bring that form of alingnment back
@@littlegiantj8761 yeah there used to be more degrees and nuance to alignment. Really ironic that this person in the video says people in 3.5 were more absolutist about alignments. Especially since the lore for the goddess of good aligned Drow was greatly expanded in that edition and the idea of mind flayers being able to become more independent if they separate from their mind flayer colony was introduced in 3.5. Something tells me he was just playing with people who never read many sourcebooks and didn't read stat blocks carefully.
I thought I heard alignment was completely removed in 5e?
Consequences for the party’s ill planned, poorly executed, or just immoral actions are never more than a few passing words of disapproval. Let it come back and bite me in the ass.
DM here. Everyone says that, but seldom few players want to suffer the full consequences of their characters mistakes and impetuousness.
@@jamessloven2204 That seems like their problem
There are consequences that involve OTHER CHARACTERS dying. That way the players feel genuine loss without needing to redo character creation.
I understand 5e is flexible, and often the variant rules are interesting. But I think 5e pays for that flexibility by not doing anything very well - only good enough. And that’s fine; I think I’m just starting to prefer games that really lean in to their particular settings and create highly specialized mechanics for them.
Ooh I kinda disagree actually. DnD is fine at what it does. It’s casual easy to learn and intuitive and doesn’t have you looking at the PF1e feats section. The combat is easy and the participants usually feel very strong.
It can also be modified with some pretty good flexibility with variants and stuff. But imo it serves its purpose as casual fun which is easy to pick up especially for people new to the hobby :0
The first time I played dnd. I just kinda started playing. I didn’t read rules or anything. Which made it very easy to get into.
I’ve played DnD, CoC, Pathfinder, and Mothership and DnD by far was easiest to get into and there’s a lot of systems in dnd that makes me feel that way and its moddability is another one of those reasons
@@crassiewassie8354but that’s exactly the point. DnD is good at what it does, but what it does isn’t always the best for the specific genre or game you want to play. And while 5e is incredibly modular, it still falls behind the games where the rules are integrated with the setting instead of just shoved in like a mishmash of Skyrim mods.
Like if I wanted to play a game about corporate espionage and near future cybernetics, I’d run Cyberpunk. If I wanted to add magic to the mix I’d run Shadowrun. If I wanted to go balls to the walls with the trans humanist themes I’d do Eclipse Phase. Because every one of those games was designed with those plots in mind. I wouldn’t try to run a classic high fantasy game set in Faerun with the Cyberpunk ruleset, so why would I run Cyberpunk with the 5e rules?
@@crassiewassie8354all those games you mentioned (except maybe Mothership as I haven’t heard of it) are rules medium to heavy. There are games far easier to learn than DnD, Dungeon World being the most prominent without getting rid of the core fantasy that DnD wants you to have.
Also, I’m guessing that the people you played with the first time knew how to play DnD or were willing to learn and teach everyone else. At least the DM. And that’s why you were able to play without reading the rules.
@@lightninjohn5651 Not really. We sorta played Crackpipe DND so it might not really count though we started playing normal DND for a while till we all got used to it. The first time I played DND was with a bunch of noobs as well with only one player really having played any games.
I also dont really agree because almost nobody has really heard of the DND alternatives. It is an entry level TTRPG because even Pathfinder is like really deep in the hobby. It might be a bad fit for new players but it's also the only fit and DND is malleable to any type of play. And so are all TTRPGs really.
There are some things DND does which I think make it a good starter TTRPG. Classes for example are really just meant to give you the best build for the fantasy you wish to experience kinda. Rather than relying on you to make the build all you need to do is not be a complete fucking moron with your ability scores.
DND is not very complicated to understand though it can get convoluted if you're in deep but you're not going in deep for your first time so who cares if it's still a fine easily learned experience.
@@crassiewassie8354Everything you mentioned is my problem with 5e, and make it less fun than older editions for me
It's too easy bc players are too strong. I don't *want* to win every time. I don't feel like a hero at that point, I feel like a janitor.
Being easy to start with is good, but it makes for a weak system afterwards.
7:45 to 8:18 is complete nonsense.
"They removed Feats and Skill Points in 5th edition."
No they didn't, feats are still in the game. They changed skill RANKS to skill proficiencies, but this barely changes anything in practice. And which edition are you using as your point of comparison? 3rd? 4th?
"If I train at lock picking, I get better at tightrope walking!"
What are you talking about? Not only does this not happen, 5e doesn't have mechanics related to training. Nor does any version of DnD since like 2nd edition.
The high requirements for upfront Backstories. I have put so much effort into character backstories just for the campaign to end after 2 sessions, or for the backstory to not matter and/or the campaign beeing an ill fit for the character, cause no information was given.
At least in online games i usually show up with a very short backstory, like my blues brothers fighter, that just adventures or does mercenary work for the money.
I understand high requirement if it's for the sake of a long campain, but if it's a one shot, just keep it for something simple but efective
yeah I was pretty disappointed for my first DnD character when I had a well thought out backstory with some hooks I added deliberately to give my character some extra goals and give the DM an opportunity to create extra conflict, just for none of that to be used.
But if it's a blues brothers fighter, why do they do it for the money? Shouldn't they be "on a mission from God"?
Praying i can learn something from these videos as I'm beginning to prepare to dm my first campaign. Good luck to all fellow new dms
A piece of advice is to practice your improv. There's no way you'll be able to predict what your players will do, so be ready to make changes on the fly.
@dizzydial8081 thank you, its definitely going to be nessacary as they are all new players so I have no frame of reference for how they'll act.
On the same note as practice improv. I find running a few "what if" situations for encounters helps put me in the setting. What If the party steals from a shop., what if the party break into the the wrong house, what if they lets a secret slip. Then in session when the party does something you haven't thought of, you'll be able to improvsive because you have a understanding of setting.
I'm also beginning to prepare my first campaign, I already have a pretty jeft doc with aall the rulings I have changed from the game and what I can do to help my players. Madly scared, but I hope in the near future I can get it started. Good luck my friend.
Good luck and all the best, fellow new DM! Hopefully all works out well for both of us and all the other new DMs out here. These MrRipper videos have been a great insight on what people like and don't like.
"Its what my character would do" I hate how much it is vilified, i mean yeah some players use it to lol random or disrupt the story but doing what your character would honestly do isnt wrong it is literally the RP aspect of this RPG.
Exactly. Unless you are roleplaying as an asshole that type of approach should be celebrated if anything.
It's not the phrase that is vilified. It's people using it as an excuse. Seriously.
Pretty much, because every action is basically what they character would do.
I understand not liking it if it's disruptive, but it should be understandable if it's to bring some good roleplay moments
It is usually only vilified when people use it as an excuse to be an A. Hole. Other than that people just call that good role play
I don't have a problem with people who use this statement. I have a problem with players that use this statement, but claim then that my Barbarian whom they just (insert: cheated/ stole from/ betrayed) wouldn't cleave them in two for the same exact statement as to why.
A-Hole Player, "It's what my..." looks nervously at my Barbarian sharpening his great axe 'A-Hole Splitter' while devilishly smiling.
Around 8:50 this is ironic ic bc the 3rd edition (I'm pretty sure 3.5 as well) BASICALLY SAYS in the gm book that bending the rules to maximize fun at the table should be the #1 priority
“You’re not playing your character in a way I find enjoyable so you’re role playing wrong”. Said by a PC rogue who routinely stole from every NPC and party member every time they saw them and spent 1/2 the campaign getting arrested because “it’s what my character would do”. They later became a DM who routinely punished anything you did “in character” and told you how stupid you were.
i dislike players not using the week up to the session to buy their stuff in game when at the city. they prefer to wait until the session to look through the items for a half hour or more, wasting other players time.
shopping should mostly be handled off screen in between games. sure some rp shopping can be fun.. to a point, for significant things. no one wants to go on a grocery shopping trip for imaginary shit.
@@DellikkilleD Problem is a lot of items have no price set (looking at you: 'MAGIC ITEMS'😒)
@@jhfdhgvnbjm75 price from 3.5 and move along.
somewhat related, I dislike when players don't plan out their turn before it comes up.
Like I have plan A plan B and plan C depending on what everyone else does, and then resolve my turn quickly when it comes to me.
then it gets to some players who spend the next couple minutes thinking about what they're going to do and then just wind up using a cantrip or taking a basic attack because they're out of ideas. You have a few minutes at least between turns to plan things out or at least decide you'll just use a cantrip so you don't waste time.
This really is part of character creation. I find it frustrating when I've done it and someone else hasn't.
No I don't need to go to the store. I'm already provisioned and equipped barring new developments.
I don't know if it is a "popular concept" but I've seen so many discussions, or even full articles, on the topic of "how do I create a Jedi in DnD? How do I create a Mandalorian in DnD? How do I create an element bender in DnD?" You do know that there are other RPGs that specialize in those things? "But I don't want to play another RPG, DnD is the best RPG system ever!"
to be fair, the issue is hat learning a new system is not always easy. in addition trying to find a group that also wants to play that system ( or convincing your group to switch to that system) can be difficult. sometimes it's just easier and still fun for everyone to reflavor some dnd stuff to fit your vision.
At the whole session 0 introduction, I really liked that my group of friends treated things to either be more organic(like people with similar backgrounds or renown to be familiar/acquaintances), pre-established(bc the actual session starts later into the quest, not at its actual start) or players collaborate in character creation(like building joint characters, or intentionally making their character with someone else's in mind). It really helped that bc this was all done via forum, and it took a week or more for people to submit sheets, that players would OOC talk or hype up the RP and player interactions. It really helped setup character development or fast track it, all bc thats what the players wanted.
Everyone who insists the DMs job to make sure everyone has fun. Whether people have fun is influenced by so many factors outside anyones control, and it treats the dm like a worker in service to the players who are there to be entertained.
I can attest from personal experience that players themselves can get in the way of their own fun, and the GM can do jack about it when it happens.
I do think it's the DM's job to make sure every player has fun, but I also think that's everyone's job. Everyone should be trying to have fun and help everyone else have fun too.
People so often forget that the DM themself is a part of that everyone
i think first dude dont understands fail fowar, is not abuot lack of consecuences is about not stoping the story.
example:
You dont track the bandits? they have more money and better equipement now whit the loot, now you must try again the next day.
His examples are fail foward poorly implemented
Your English isn't great but I completely agree with your point.
@@audiblerangerdms6616 thanks
Im writing on the phone and englis is not My native lenguaje so Yeah My writing sucks XD
This is actually a very good point. Unless it's a TPK, let the story continue.
Yeah; the point of fail forward is that you provide interesting consequences instead of stonewalling the party if they fail an ability check
I don't think the examples he made were the best, but I agree that there doesn't always have to have a success outcome and we can afford to have at least some chance of failure. If there's never any real failure and everything you fail things are just different, there are never any stakes. Unless it is vital to the story that they don't fail, show them that failure is an option. If it's never and option to fail, you never have to worry about failing. And with your example of the bandits getting better gear because they were found later... congratulations you've rewarded the players for them failing. Oh boy a harder combat we still can't fail because the DM is allergic to failure?
"DMs should always answer to players' ideas with 'yes, and...'"
No, they should not. The DM can always incorporate ideas from the players, and their ideas are a great indicator for what they want in a campaign, but some ideas are just bad for the great narrative the DM is trying to build.
Once had a player repeatedly try to request hookers from his character’s boss, but kept being oblique with the requests (“can we get some help around here that’s easy on the eyes” etc). Given that his boss was basically a giant robot being piloted by half a corpse I got to have FUN with him by having the boss repeatedly hiring highly competent people who were distinctly not hookers
I come from an improv background so am a big fan of 'yes, and...' but at the same time I know that as a rule of improv it exists in a greater context. Such as making 'offers' to each other to build up the scene on rather than demands. Also that its done to help others have great moments rather than make it about yourself etc etc etc.
"No, but..." can be just as good.
@@artyjnrii This 100%. "No, but..." is often just as valid as "Yes, and..." because it shows you're willing to work things out with your players, while also setting firm rules and boundaries that they need to follow
That there can’t be evil races.
Sometimes you want evil in your campaign to serve as a no holds barred absolute force of chaos and evil for heroic characters/ideals to strive against.
O.k., but why do you need an entire species to be boringly monolithic to have evil in your campaign? It's a lot more interesting I think when the unabashed evil looks just like the people fighting it.
The thing is, Failing Forwards is one of those things I think is good advice...sometimes.
Failing forwards is good for something like an investigation where, for example, a DM might decide to hinge a critical plot point on investigation checks. Cue everyone in this example failing.
Now, a DM who isn't failing forward would just go "Yeah, sorry, you find nothing. Tough shit." And then the game stalls because the plot thread was reliant on passing THAT check and the players just peter about or nothing happens. Which SUCKS!
Failing Forward in this case would be "OK, yeah, you don't find THE THING. But you do maybe find this other little thing that points you somewhere. Basically offering an alternative route for the investigation. More or less taking the longer or harder route to the answer, or being a red herring".
For something like that? Yeah, I am fine with failing forward as it keeps momentum going. Nobody likes an investigation being pointless.
The bossfight example he gave is absolutely an example of where failing forward should not be used. If they were caught, they should have lost their weapons and gear. Then you can have a prison break session, or plan to escape.
Or, if the BBEG was particularly vicious and couldn't have a reason to leave them alive...they can kill them. Sometimes, there's just no way to justify PC's surviving and that's fine. Stakes do need to be present, and sometimes the threat of death needs to be there.
What that DM did was basically confirm the PC's have Bleach levels of plot-armor, which is...boring and deflates the tension entirely.
So yeah, Failing forward is a tool to be used but it shouldn't be the be-all-end-all. Sometimes...the PC's just fail completely.
well said
"failing forward" doesn't and shouldn't mean "no real consequences"
It means the GM decides "No, the dice don't get to stop our game at this particular point"
@@joshrobins130 well if the plot is contingent on them finding something, perhaps the best thing to do is not require a roll at all.
You can hide this from them by letting them do a couple rounds of checks for minor clues that give them more info, and have a round timer (I roll 1d8-highest investigation bonus and that's the time it will take to find.)
They feel like they rolled enough to have agency, and the narrative is undisturbed.
Or failing forward like you did the thing but not the way you wanted and you need to bear the consequences, or something unexpected happened like alerting enemies. "You found the key" but player left so much mess mafia or whatever realize players are onto them
On the topic of joke characters
Some of the most impactful and meaningful character moments I’ve ever seen was when a joke character had an incredibly traumatic or impactful moment occur, and you could almost see the switch flip from “I’m just a whimsical guy!” To “oh shit, that just happened.” And they slowly begin to undergo the heroes journey. It’s beautiful, and I will always Stan the joke characters.
Viva La Dirt League had a sketch that highlighted this very point. Character started out as Fartpants Something and everyone else was ‘no really?’.
Cut to the scene where the character dies a heroic death saving the party and now his joke name is revered.
I agree - what isn't usually clarified/expressed is that it is mostly an issue of player intentions and maturity rather than joke characters themselves.
If you have people who've come to shit on the campaign and make it all about how much attention they are getting, then yeah - it's gonna be crap. If the player has good comedic timing and/or knows when to shut up and let the others do their thing, and maybe has an actual arc, like you described, then it's all good.
The problem is that, unless you know the player very well, you can never be sure what you'll get.
This literally always happens with my joke characters they tend to be mascots for the party and are also usually innocent. So when things do happen to them it can feel like it has both an impact in the party “Oh shit the cute silly guy character who cant speak and his name is Bombles and he’s always in a plesant mood is feeling actually down? We should all help Bombles for being suxh a great mascot”
And then Bombles as well being as innocent as they are it makes a greater sort of tragedy when they’re wronged in a horrible way.
@@6ftTiny216i’ve literally never gotten a joke character go bad. I think they’re incredibly easy characters to play becuase of how easily you can fit them into games and have them be serious within them. Idk i’ve never had a truly disruptive joke character
there is a fine line when doing a good joke character, and where the line is depends on the party and the general atmosphere of the game.
I hate the idea of that you can’t use an ability or something seconds after somebody else says they are going to start their turn . Like using an ability at the end of my turn and then being told “um no you should have done that earlier “ , when nothing that happend yet would have been affected.
Idk how popular this is but: Being vague about what kind of campaign we're playing mystery is fine. But when you allow me to show up to the table playing a guy who hates elves then have the entire campaign around helping elves it becomes a problem.
Ehat if it's the case where said character does hate elves at first, but then overcomes their prejudice?
@@Arlesmon I think the point is that they shouldn't blame the pc then that they don't want to interact with elves, since he couldn't know what would happen, and couldn't find a good reasoning that fast, so that it makes sense that he accepted to somewhow help the elves. Inshort it's not the PC's but Dm's fault if that happens
That's when a good player says, "This character would not do that. This character doesn't work for the campaign. I'm going to make another character. Is there anything else I should know before I do? Are X species ok? How about Y class option?"
@@imayb1 that is the point. At session 0, it should be clear what is the rough conceit of the game. The players should build their characters around it then.
Yeah... I think my approach in that case, if I really felt the need to keep a secret as a DM would be to hint that those ideas would feature in my story/that some character design choices might be disadvantaged. And probably tell anyone who came to me with a char idea before session 1 if they were going to be effected.(esp since it'll effect their backstories!)
But also, I don't think I would keep such secrets. People's decisions through life are informed by their environments, and stuff like that could very much have an impact on things like class or feat. If you're brought up somewhere where everyone hate you, for example, you probably learned tricks to keep yourself safer.
... the first one is kinda weird.
The problems in the game are meant to be solved. Sure, they can fail, but there should be an alternative solution to the problem. Them failing should have consequences but not a complete shutdown to the mission.
You are going to fail something. That's unavoidable. But punish the players by showing what happened to the world when they failed. Fail to find a bandit camp, show them that the village they just visited was raided, fail to kill a dragon, show them that the kingdom they lived in fell. Not fail one round, and suddenly, it's a TPK.
I love how some of contradictory with others. Dichotomy of man or whatever.
Not sure if its popular, but when DM's get upset when players talk about things that their characters wouldn't know. Obviously you can't meta game, but to say "Hey this thing is weak to fire, yeah?", and then find a way for your characters to discover it naturally is always such a cool feeling. As a DM, im guilty of just telling them the weakness through NPC's, and i highly reccomend doing it the other way.
Unless something has an explicitly hidden game mechanic, I'm usually very upfront about monster stats. I get no joy out of saying, "Unfortunately, it's immune to poison, so your attack did NOTHING."
There’s a line between an excuse and an explanation when it comes to “it’s what my character would do”. The difference is easy, for example my paladin smashed an evil artifact because it’s evil and he’s extremely practical, man doesn’t know how to contain or properly disenchant a magical artifact. So he tried to destroy it. This resulted in an explosion and I got asked if I wanted to change my mind. I said no because it is what he would do, and it wasn’t intended as something directly harmful it’s just him making a mistake. It becomes a bad thing when I (as DM) killed some characters off for narrative weight (and because nobody had less than 2) and the next day the necromancer had raised them all as zombies because “it’s what my character would do” despite how angry that made everyone else. He then proceeded to be a douche bag for like five more sessions including sabotaging the entire campaign, before leaving because “you’re just not a good enough DM to make this fun for me”. Like clearly not, I let you do this shit
I think the one thing this video makes clear is that we really need to establish some clear definitions for buzzwords in this community.
I wouldn't call these terms buzzwords. The problem is that they are largely as old as the hobby.
The unfortunate issue is they've seen broader and broader use so they've gotten spread very thin.
You pretty much have to be more direct than that or state your definition of the term to have a useful discussion about it.
Or in ANY community
I hate how it's just kinda expected that I allow every race, class and feature from every book ever released for the edition of whatever game I'm playing, and if I ever say "No, we're just sticking to PHB races and classes", I'm the bad guy because how could someone *possibly* make an interesting character that isn't a centaur psi warrior?
To be fair, I would also be very curious as to why you wouldn’t allow Tasha’s and Xanathar’s.
God forbid players want to try something else than a human knight and a tiefling thief 😢
@@chillcapybaracitrus God won't forbid you, but I will. :P
I get that. Some races or classes just don't make sense in the setting, especially when DMs are using their own created worlds
Yeah I have the same. I only own some of the earlier 5e books, and have built my world around the concepts therein.
I'm flexible enough to allow some variations on races or Subclasses that I don't know, but I'm a sucker for making interesting characters within the restrictions of more basic rules.
I think the one attitude that I don't like is characters have to fall under specific tropes like the Rogue has to steal whatever isn't nailed down or the Bard has to be horny and try to seduce everything. Nothing wrong with having tropes but whenever it is heavily suggested to have only that one option for that class it just takes something away.
One attitude I hate is when I'm told I built my character wrong because its not 100% optimized. Most of the time I build characters that have some kind of flaw or quirk while picking spells that feel appropriate for them. One game that I was close to joining but ultimately didn't had this one player that kept telling me I made a huge mistake with some of the spells I chose. I didn't pick Silvery Barbs and Hypnotic Pattern on my Artificer/Wizard. He was absolutely furious because I refused to use those spells. He was sitting there explaining to me why those spells are the best spells like I was some kind of new player, I never played DnD before but I have several other systems so I'm aware of how strong certain spells can be. I didn't join that group because of that player and that 'power-gamer' attitude.
The "class stereotypes" thing really bugs me, since I play a few rogues. None of them are thieves.
I hate that 5e is 'the' dnd. There's so many other systems going back to OD&D that are supported by the OSR community to this day.
The guy who is talking about the imbalance between RP and one combat is 100%, right? This disproportionately favors classes with limited resources. Because they can just play Blow their wad. With no reason thought towards consequences and fighters, monks and other classes who are in it for the long haul. But don't have as much burst are left out in the cold
my pet peeve is that people willy nilly use "rules lawer" and metagaming as a bludgeon for things like asking to do something slightly outside the set rules or asking someone to reread their features because they got something wrong
In line with the last one, my worst pet peeve is something I experienced myself and that is getting shit for making a suboptimal class and race combo.
I once played a half-elven barbarian and one player in my party just could not wrap their head around why all the world I wouldn't go with human, half-orc or dwarf, which give far better bonuses for the class. When I said "for fun", they were like "yeye, have fun not dealing any damage". That interaction, along with a host of other reasons, is why I don't play with that player anymore.
As an improvisor, I'm not a fan of how "Yes, And" has become the improv title card. Yes, And is the golden rule for improv comedy. If your genre isn't comedy, then it might not be appropriate. There is a rule that comes way before Yes, And in improv and D&D, and it is this: Listen, Commit, Support. Listen to your fellow players(including the gm), commit to the group, and support everyone else. Those 3 things don't just make you a great player, they make you a great person.
I hate that falling is instantaneous, with an off switch after every 500 feet if you're using Xanathar's optional rule. It causes so many weird questions that I do not know for sure what the answer is.
How does Jumping work? Is it "faster" than instantaneous because your character gets to travel a bit with their jump before the instant fall? How does the spell caster have time to take the component or touch his spellcasting focus to cast Feather Fall? Can you even counterspell Feather Fall as it has to also be instantaneous, so would you see something instantaneous?
Metagaming is when you as a player are putting information into the game that you as a character would not know. For example if you as a player have played through a module before and you know that there's a trap in the hallway, but you as a character do not know that there is a trap in that hallway, metagaming would be if you as a character are suddenly cautious of this hallway and trying to warn people that it could be trapped. If there is no reason for your character to suspect the hallway should be trapped then your character should not have that suspicion. Especially if your character is not known for trap sense such as a rogue.
The action economy is essentially a turn-based economy that measures input and output. What the action economy is actually measuring is an almost one for one comparison between the player and the dm. Essentially what it measures is how much work is the party doing compared to how much work is the DM doing. For example if you have four level five characters, and they are against 27 level 3 skeletons, the action economy would prove that for every one turn each character takes you have five skeletons acting upon them.
That sorcerers didn't have to work hard because they were born with their magic. I'm sorry, but when you're growing up and harvest season is dangerous because if you aren't ready when you sneeze you cast Burning Hands on accident, you HAD to work hard at magic simply to SURVIVE YOURSELF!
In my favourite book series there is one character who when he was a child accidentaly turned his dog inside out with rogue magic...
I blame this perception of sorcerers mainly on bad roleplaying and people not understanding the class.
@@tobiasbayer4866I have a similar view of Warlocks. In my mind, whatever deal or Pact a Warlock made has already been completed and thus the Patron has no power over them. The deal was completed, after all, because that's how you became a Warlock.
It makes no sense to me that, for example, a CR 3 Unicorn can strip a Lv20 Celestial Warlock of all their power. Warlocks are not Clerics simping to deities, you know?
@@RioDrakeDepends on what kind of pact they made? Was it a transaction or was it continuous.
5e in particular seems to be especially rife with characters who just seem to have picked up their classes by happenstance. "Anyone can swear an oath! Anyone can read a spellbook! Anyone can be granted powers from god! Or pick up a sword, or sneak around, or fail their anger management courses!" It feels like we've picked up a lot of people who really want a classless system and are doggedly determined to decouple character abilities from any form of martial or mystical tradition that must be practiced.
@@mercaiusahh the ever classic “why don’t you just play another system?” If you want a classless system (and there are plenty decent ones out there) just play one of those
Almost every single race having darkvision. It’s something that should be a special feature, but instead you’re special in DnD for not having it.
Redditors REALLY need to shop around for DMs and/or players that run the game they want.
Because a lot of this could be solved with finding another table online that is running things according to their Disney Princess "I Want" song-ass diatribes.
I hate when classes are treated as job descriptions rather than skillsets. Aka every stereotype of 'you need to be a barbarian to be angry' (and also a noble savage), or a monk to punch things, or bards *always* being magical musical assholes (and having no other traits outside of that & narcissism), Rogues being kleptomaniacs etc. I like it when bards are say the catch-all of oddball skills, I particularly love them for say military officers. The best barbarian I ever saw was a samurai in a european setting. Lawful good dwarf rogues that don't steal, they just like working with machines and locks.
Lawful good being a comeptition between the concepts of "law" and "good" is particularly annoying, instead of a perfect ideal that compromises between both as long as actions serve both.
@@Syfa my favorite rogue that I play is indeed a dwarven locksmith/blacksmith. The only reason he has any combat experience at all is because his clan has mandatory military service. Lawful neutral, though.
In my current campaign (2024 PHB) I'm playing a Zealot Barbarian with the Criminal background. He's a terrorist for Gaia, believing he receives his class/subclass features from her to fulfill the divine calling of eradicating steampunk technology from the world. Oh, and he talks in the Bane voice.
I hate the idea that the Blood War is this super-important thong that the balance of the multiverse depends on, that without the devils andtheir cruelties, the demons would overrun the multiverse.
My issues with it are multiple. Why are the demons so much more powerful that they pose a threat to the rest of the multiverse? While the demons are infinite, so are every other faction.
Then, if the demons are such a vast threat, why couldn't the non-fiendish planes unite against them? Between the Good, Neutral, and Inner Planes, they could get a pretty sizeable army.
And lastly, despite the claims of the vast importance of it, it seems like the moment any god gets involved, the Blood War gets upended. Asmodeus threw the Abyss into the Elemental Chaos during the Spellplague. Zariel crapped herself at the prospect of Tiamat intervening. AscendedRaphel was cleaning house when he gets the Crown.
It makes more sense to me the idea that the Blood War is this thing of Cosmic Importance is just propaganda on the side of the devils, though it does have the benefit of keeping them both out of the Material Plane.
Descent Into Avernus actually does seem to imply that the Blood War is way less important that Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes makes it out to be. So perhaps it really is propaganda from devils. Or perhaps Mordenkainen specifically is really obsessed with it.
I think you're underselling the benefit of keeping them out of the Material Plane. I also think you're overestimating the usefulness of the neutral and inner planes.
• Devils and demons have no reason to attack the inner planes because they'd gain nothing by doing so. Elemental creatures don't have souls the way mortals do, and thus serve no purpose to Hell. If anything, Hell might consider itself a soft ally of the Fire Plane, since the City of Brass is a common center of trade for devils. Demons might attack the inner planes because they want to eat everything, but I can't imagine that's enough justification for elementals to deploy elemental legions across the cosmos to fight on behalf of the Upper or Material Planes.
• As for the Material Plane, every planet conquered by Hell or swallowed by the Abyss is just more devils/demons. Not true for Upper Planes. Especially since it's not like the Upper Planes can 'conquer' planets and forcibly make new angels the way Hell can with devils. And the Abyss just spits out demons naturally.
• As for neutral planes, there aren't very many of them. There are more layers of Baator than there are neutral planes. Not to mention that most neutral planes do not have regimented armies. They have inhabitants and natives, but those do not make armies. Certainly not ones that can be deployed outside of their borders.
• There was a time where the Blood War was put on pause and both devils and demons attacked the Upper Planes, and it scared the shit out of Celestia. The battle also ended in a pretty nasty victory for the Lower Planes.
When it comes down to it, the fact that angels can fall means that any such conflict between the Upper and Lower planes would be pretty nasty. I don't know if there are any examples of fiends 'ascending' but there are several examples of celestials falling. So yes, the Blood War is extremely important. And to top it all off, the Blood War is fucking cool.
@@pringles_mcgee I think that is old lore. Newer lore seems to indicate that if the Blood War were to go against the rest of the multiverse, it would last about as long as it would take for a greater god to get involved. When Asmodeus ascended in FR, he chucked the Abyss into the Elemental Chaos and the Blood War went into a cold period, while as mentioned by paigeepler, Zariel was terrified about Tiamat getting involved. I mentioned Ascended!Raphael overturning Hell in a very short timespan.
These days, it seems like the rest of the Multiverse tolerates the Blood War because getting involved in would be a horribly unpleasant quagmire, not risking the existential threat that is a united fiendom.
Also, my comment is that demons, not fiends in general, would overrun everything if it wasn't for the Devils bearing the brunt of everything. Demons don't need a reason to rampage. They would tear up the City of Brass for shits and giggles.
As for "more layers than the Neutral Planes", first off, everything is infinite, how exactly does having more layers mean you have more infinity? They could just be smaller infinites than Mechanus and Limbo. Also, Acheron and Pandemonium are rarely if ever mentioned with regard to the Blood War, with Acheron's eternal battlefield being more dominated by the Goblin/Orc battles.
As someone who actually LIKES playing a big damn hero i loath the habit of many d&d groups to play like it’s grand theft dragon and play the most sociopathic pragmatic bastards they can imagine then groan and gripe because your neutral good cleric suggests maybe NOT defiling the corpses of dead villagers or mugging the blind orphan halfling child
Most DnD community think they're sociopathic but when I tell stories from my Mork Borg games they act like I should never again play ttrpgs
8:30 I have no problem with exceptions to the rule (the lore). I Do have problems with the idea that no creature is _usually_ of a certain way. And I mean all the way to celestials and devils/demons.
First guy is very much misunderstanding "fail forward" or at least the spirit of it. It's not making it so your team cannot fail at all, it's setting things up and having consequences happen that don't end the entire game in one fell stroke or bad dice roll. You can still have your heroes lose snd your BBEG win, but rather than TPK your players, you shift the campaign so it's dealing with the consequences instead of outright ending the story.
7:47 the 'oversimplification' one, i think maybe the examples they used were just bad. But they didn't really make a good point. Acrobatics require dexterity and lockpicking also requires dexterity, and with max dexterity
It's only a +5 to both, it's not like you gain the ability to always succeed on either.
I actually think the opposite. Fifth edition is better because instead of having 5 or 6 things that could just be called 'acrobatics' now we just have acrobatics. And if you really wanted to you could talk with your dm about having advantage an extra bonus, or maybe even a negative modifier on specific roles in specific situations. Like how some animals have advantage on perception so long as they're using their sense of smell.
Its funny because the answer to the first guy’s problem is to fail forward…but he has misunderstood what fail forward means. All fail forward means is that you dont get to attempt to solve the same problem over and over again until you succeed. If you fail, the consequences trigger and the story develops as a result of those consequences. Failing forward is about moving the story forward upon failure. The issue that the first guy is dealing with is a GM who isnt willing to just inflict real consequences for failure and developing the story in a direction that allows them to explore those consequences.
strongly disagree with the "don't like having my players meet in session 1, always feels forced" one. That, to me, seems like a DM problem. You legitimately have nearly unlimited options for how they can meet, it doesn't need to be the old cliche "they were all coincidentally in the same pub", and player characters definitely don't have to immediately gel and be instant besties, they can have a working relationship to the same goal as they establish vibes. Yes, everyone having already been a group for a while IS one of those options, but discounting all the others, especially when a lot of players love the RP of an initial meetup, because it "always feels forced", that seems like a lack of creativity on the DM's part, unfortunately.
I personally prefer to go with: Each member of the party have an established relationship with at least one other person in the group before the adventure. I don't care what the relationship is--friends, family, rivals, lovers--but I find it creates much more interesting dynamics if there is some established history between the characters. Also easier for newer/shy players to get into the roleplay if they already know that so-and-so is their overprotective older sister or whatever and have someone to naturally banter with.
@@Guy_With_A_Laser My groups do this as well, and up it to two people if the group is 5 players. The entire idea is just 'X vouches for Y.' Zero pre-history is doomed if suddenly a player shows up with giga-lawful paladin and another a giga-evil necromancer and just start from initial meeting with zero reason to not kill each other on the spot.
Honestly, I can't stand it when people try to warp and twist D&Ds system and mechanics for any and every setting that isn't fantasy like it's the only ttrpg around. Like, I get it. It's fun but the amount of times I've watched my friends go "oh lets make it a superhero game" and I sit there and be like "you mean like mutants & masterminds" or "lets make it a horror game" and I would think "I mean chronicles of darkness and call of cthulhu exist but okay" and they would bend over backwards to make the system work for the setting like at a certain point its less work to learn a new system then to change D&D to the point thats its not even D&D anymore. Its part of the reason im a forever Gm now so i can help people learn about other systems that aren't D&D.
I'm sad that society still hasn't figured out that good and especially lawful good alignment doesn't mean blind fanaticism or paranoid delusions and psychopathy. I see alignment getting downplayed (if not done away with altogether à la BG3) and I've suspected it's in part because players can't/won't break free of this idea that took off in the 70s and 80s that goes something like "Wow, wouldn't it be ironic if there were all these bad things about good, while evil isn't really bad just quirky and does its own thing?" Though another reason is surely the whole controversy over evil races.
I don't mind the comic relief character, to an extent. What I hate is a joke character whose "joke" is detrimental to the party; or the player who has to hold up the session to get that one fucking gag when after the EIGHTH REROLL (this has happened multiple times) it wasn't gonna be funny anymore, anyway. I am also one of the people who vilifies the statement "it's what my character would do", because after the first few sessions of getting to know everyone's characters, the character's actions should be able to speak for themselves.
Also, any GM who uses "grim dark" in their campaign's description and specifically asks for players who haven't played before have consistently used the setting as an excuse to torture players who don't know any better. I have gotten into screaming matches with one GM over this; and his exact argument one time was "If I run a campaign with a player yelling at me at the end of every session, I'm doing my job". NO, YOU'RE BEING A BULLY! That is not how you introduce new people to the hobby! I don't care about whatever 40K lore you're ripping off!
I mean sometimes there are players or Dm's Tha condemn the actions of a pc regardless if it makes sense from the pov of the pov or not, so saying "it's what my Caracter would do" isn't necessarily bad
@@LeoNidas-c8g I know, and I know context is everything; just had the urge to vent a bit once I started.
@@hatcatmoby8893 i can feel you dont worry XD
Yeah, the grim dark one definitely sucks. And sounds like that DM definitely missed what grimdark is supposed to be. Yes, it's harsh and will probably quash any real hopes given enough time. But seeing that as the goal is incorrect. Grimdark is about the struggle to keep going, to keep that light in the darkness for just a bit longer. How even if one's attempts mean nothing in the end, the attempt is what matters. Even then, that isn't for everyone, and for those who may be interested, you don't give it to an actual newbie.
Just always get annoyed when someone tries to make grimderp instead of grimdark. I get similarly annoyed when grimdark is thrown out just being the way it is.
If the eight rerolls happens the one time in a campaign then its a joke of its own because holy shit, 7 failed rolls in a row is a riot in the right company. More often than that is an issue though, yeah.
Every time there is a rule issue we set up a little court. Another player and I are the most knowledgeable when it comes to the rules as written, we plead our case to the DM, be it a ruling he made or something we wish to remind him off, he makes an now educated decision and then we continue.
"Racial Languages". Even in Tolkein, "Elven" split into different dialects and languages. But in D&D, an elf born in the slums of the game world equivalent of Dublin, Ireland, learns the same "Elven" as an elf born in the game world's equivalent of the Japanese Imperial Palace. Language, like values, should be cultural, not species.
Given a D&D elf alive today could have met an elf who in turn met an elf who was older than the invention of writing, I'm honestly not sure how we should expect their language to drift. It's like your japanese elf shows up in Dublin, and he and your Dublin elf were college roommates in Baghdad 700 years ago.
@@nicholascarter9158We’ll see language split all the time cuz most language isn’t standardized. For most of human history actually it was like this. There was no standard for how a word was spelt till we made dictionaries. All language is at its core is interpretive as well.
Also dialects would form unless the language is constructed. If a god bestowed elves with their language then it wouldn’t have fuck ups in it.
Nowadays one of the strictest languages in the world is french and even that was changed pretty dramatically when it was creolized in Haiti. Jamaican english as well is a distinct language and not that old.
I can kinda see elves being snooty about their language though lmao. “This is the correct way to say worcestershire”
@@crassiewassie8354 I mean, Elvish is actually like the second language they've used. Espraur is the current language elves use in the forgotten realms & an older language existed & is basically only used by extremely ancient people. By the fifteenth century DR, it's by most elves semi-forgotten & not used anymore. Elvish also has things that are slang & considered more modern, so elvish seems to change a little & evolve to be able to describe things.
Most slang seems to revolve around half-elves, describing other races & humanity. So, like, for elves having to make up words & concepts for society's revolving around them & them coming back & making words to describe concepts that exist outside traditional elven society.
For DM's out there that want to play in homebrew worlds, but players complain about not having this or that in the game. For Session 0 or a Pre-Session play Dawn of Worlds first. This is a 12 page rule-book game free download on line that you and your players can use to create a world all on your own. Each person gets to add features, events, species, etc. to the world thru 3 historic periods. After that if what that Player wanted in the world is not there, IT'S THEIR FAULT!
8:20
I have a DM that's like this.
He really hated my idea of a Assimar tiefling, amd really sulked when I pointed out it was legit in a official book 😅
7:24 I think this just comes from people not wanting to learn another system. I think the most egregious of this I've ever seen is people trying to play Cyberpunk in DND but it's like Cyberpunk is a tabletop game and has been for a long time. If you're making your own cyberpunk setting, cool, go ahead, but if you're explicitly using Night City and characters and lore from the Cyberpunk series, just look into playing Cyberpunk 2020 or RED.
Anything chaotic stupid always put me off. The amount of Himbos and female equivalent in DND always irked me as no one is literally this stupid. It is a caricature of people making stupid choices for comedic effect but in dnd i often find this so dumb I lose interest. I can understand a character coming as dumb due to language barriers, actually being illiterate, or having some reason for being rather unintelligent. However, playing a character like your ben stiller from zoolander immediately breaks me from the immersion and ruins the experience for me, and always leads to issues for the party that are not the fun kind of issues to play out in game.
What if it's the case of someone being dumb for the sake of roleplay, but is actually serious or does a inteligente thing when it matters for the sake of the plot?
Becuase i kinda tend to do some dumb things, but actually try to play smart in serious moments or moments of tension
Playing stupidity right requires knowing realistic limits and group dynamics. Grog works for Critical roll but may not work in another group. I'm playing a Trippki (PF2E verson of Grippli aka frog man) who has very broken language due to growing up in the wild. And my group us finding out that he isn't academically smart but he is very wise and surprisingly smart when it comes to science (due to him observing how things work in nature and having to make it work by himself).
If it actually helps the story in any way or is a vital part of the characters backstory that can be explained I'm usually ok with it. The problem is the amount of people who simply wish to cause chaos and just claim, "Intelligence is my dump stat so he's an idiot." I've seen stupid characters actually played well and they are a lot of fun, but I'm specifically meaning the himbos that serve no other purpose than to cause problems.
The female equivalent of a himbo is a bimbo, man. Bimbo is the original term, himbo is the male equivalent that emerged in the modern lexicon.
"No one is literally this stupid"
Have you been on twitter?
Railroading and WMCWD (what my character would do) gets a bad rep. The group I play with would have no idea what or where to go and basically need to be almost told. Also regarding wmcwd, played a life cleric escorting an npc and their daughter to safety during combat and was scolded by my party for doing so. Reason why I did it was because me and another player worked together to revive them after they just recently died and my character wanted to ensure that didn’t happen again.
Riddles and puzzles. Whenever quest passing depends on how good is player in riddles irl, not even charscter int, its horrible, it's not dicez not RP, battle or even what is in your sheet, and yakes time. And damn only 1 correct answer is even worse than nat20 only requirements. So whenever there is shpynx with riddle, sorry DM, but i roll to seduce
roll away thats an autofail unless the sphinx happens to have a weird kink.
I personally think puzzles can be ok. As it's a way to challenge people, but have an alternative solution of no one knows the puzzle or a way that can work, but with some different results, that way the game can progress.
And puzzles are the hardest thing, more than combat by a lot
@@DellikkilleDfine, I roll initiative
Imagine being so close-minded to basic criticism that you force someone to fail just because they tried to find a way around the problem.@DellikkilleD
@@addison_v_ertisement1678 force someone to fail? if you attempt a literally impossible task, the only one that forced you to fail is you.
The idea that attack magic is the only worthwhile magic. Looking at you fireball spammers. Try some illusion magic dangit! (Im so tired of calculating npc collateral damage)
Why would people use illusion magic in a fight?
@@savvythedivineyethuggable7493 To mislead enemies into hitting the wrong target, perhaps, or to scare them away?
Thinking that restricting sources as a DM is opressive. If youa re a beginner DM, you have every right to limit everything to the Core rulebook, and do not let anyone convince you otherwise.
I'm not a new DM, but my stance on it is unless you can show me the source material you're wanting to use as a physical book or a PDF, we're not using it.
@@LostVaranasi In my case, I only allow stuff from the official books which I have in my shelf. Unless ist is a one shot or dungeon crawl.
Exploration and travel aren’t dangerous, and add no Exhaustion on top of it. It mitigates expose of the Ranger and strategic planning. Ambushing and counter-ambushing can be quite fun.
i don't know if it's popular but i think the concept of "X cards" is stupid as it undermines the idea of a session 0 (or you know? just talking things out like adults) and can easily be abused by bad actors to cheat.
If you're playing a little kender in the party that's always trying to steal stuff from the party members, I'm not going to stop the party from stringing your character up in a dungeon, taking all your stuff, and baiting a gelatinous cube to come make sure you're never a problem again.
I do not like how the martial/caster divide is being discussed. Yes, casters can do heavy stuff and martials do not have the access to a similar toolbox. That is something to discuss. But where I disagree to the entire notion is that casters and martials don't need to be on the same playing field. They are good at different things and are supposed to work together as a team. A caster is powerful as long as they have spell slots. Most martials are efficient most of the time with most of their resources only needing a short rest to replenish. Casters are great sprinters while martials are amazing at running a marathon.
Different foes require different skills. Sometimes martials are useless for dmg, sometimes you have a fire sorcerer in a fight against a red dragon.
Agreed casters have their weaknesses. The issue is those weaknesses were based on a rule that so many parties dont use properly, the adventuring day. Thr same reason people worry over warlocks having spells on a short rest
It only works in theory, never in practice.
Casters can do everything a martial already can, plus a ton of more stuff a martial will never be able to do. Not to mention all the ways casters can bypass their limited ressources with magic items, which is for some reason never brought up.
The thing is, a lot of people don't even want martials to be equally powerful as casters, only for them to have more options and fun abilities to use.
Even in real life we have hundreds, if not thousands, of manuals/books/scrolls/whatever/etc. of different martial techniques, moves, stances, tactics, and a multitude of other things. Why is martial combat so dumbed down in DnD where it's basically "I attack"; "Now I attack twice"; "Now I make an attack of opportunity!" and other, similarly basic things?
Let martial classes have different combat stances that synergize in different ways with fighting styles, learn different moves or techniques that can be used between player and foe in a dynamic back and forth of who tries to get the upper-hand, tactical abilities that allow allies to combo with each other to impactful results.
I know there are some feats/class/subclass features that allow for that, but they are few and far between, and so disparate that you don't have an appropriate level of customization on your martial character to match the elegant complexities of martial combat.
@@f145hr3831jr I see that brought up a lot and I just don't agree with it. A wizard *can* replicate other classes in combat but they have to burn resources to do so. A fighter or rogue can run in and just fuck shit up without having to really plan or burn resources to do so. Like yeah sure, a wizard can use knock to bypass locked doors. Did they prepare it? Do they have a rogue? How many locks are there? Why bother wasting a spell slot on Knock when you can have the rogue make the check with Expertise? Same outcome, usually.
The only real criticism of the martial-caster divide is out of combat utility. Magic is magic, and the wizard being able to teleport to different planes, clone themselves, or create simulacrums is not something you can really give a martial class without it not being a martial class anymore. It's why I almost always give the martials in my games armies, organizations, or factions to lead. Because then they can affect the world and call upon *people* as their resource.
Since when have feats been removed from 5e? And how does one misunderstand the proficiency bonus rule and proficiencies in general so badly? 🤔
Feats are a variant/optional rule in 5e. It's just that everyone ignores that and plays with them anyways. Same with multiclassing.
@pringles_mcgee Ohhhhhh… That tracks with that person also misunderstanding the proficiency bonus rule and proficiencies in general! 🤭
@pringles_mcgee And thank you for clarifying! 😁
Being so Chaotic stupid that you kill your fellow players. Yes I've killed team mates before, but those were genuine accidents.
System purists who adamantly refuse to play anything but the one, maybe two systems they have decided to fixate on. I know nowadays it’s mostly people who like 5e refusing to branch out, but I’m juuust old enough to remember when people insisted on hacking 3.5 into everything instead of just learning a different system. It’s like watching someone try to hammer in a screw because “learning to use a screwdriver is too hard”
Every week or so, there's a thread on reddit with a new player asking "Hey, my party doesn't have a healer, is that a problem?" And almost every single response is "No, play what you want." That's just really setting that player up for failure. Not having access to a free or cheap way to bring someone back from 0 HP is going to majorly bankrupt the party at low levels of play, and will not really stop being a problem at higher levels. Taking Magic Initiate or the Healer Feat, or just being an Aasimar is such low investment to majorly improve the party's quality of life. No one is asking you to keep shoving Cure Wounds up the barbarian's ass 24/7, but everyone will love you when you can healing word the barbarian back to his feet after he took the dragon's breath weapon at point blank range, even if you can only do it once.
2:46
I actually recently had an eye-opening experience in regards to this just recently while trying out Monster of the Week. In this system, depending on your hunter archetype (your character class), you have a set list of suggestions for History to choose for each of your fellow player's characters to have with yours. During the introduction, it is a necessary step to collectively determine said histories for all players, and work with the other players to do so. Or, in other words - the default expectation is that everyone in the party already knows each-other, at least in passing, and not that the first session is their first time meeting. And honestly? I love that. It gives me actual incentive to roleplay with and help out these people whom in real life are strangers to me(at least for now).
“Practice Rolls”. Buddy, you roll when the DM says so. If you’re trying to manipulate your dice, it’s called cheating. If you wanna just rattle them around in your hand without letting go, gets annoying, but I’ll allow it.
Its my adhd, I get to choose the weird tic!
Got one; when you upfront establish a type of magic works differently in your homebrew world, then your players try to correct you on it like you read the books wrong.
7:45 Oh I know I've rambled about this one before, and I still hate how the oversimplification of 5th edition sacrificed customization depth for broader audience entry. Similarly I've also played in a group that was so stubbornly rigid in using the books as they said like that 3rd edition rant, and I've also left such groups for being boring. The wargaming background I've barely thought about, but I know I've seen the implementation of it outside of combat too, and probably contributes to the failing forward issue.
I hate the idea that the Lawful alignment has anything to do with following the laws of whatever land you're in.
also that 3.5 player at 9:02 clearly didn't interact with the community in any way. I was playing and DMing throughout the entire run of 3.5 and the wotc boards were full of very active constant talk between us and everyone was very aware that always never meant always. One of our mascots was Ted the Flayer a comedian who popped up to make inappropriately timed jokes. Hell on of the biggest threads was 1,001 Ways to Kill the Tarrasque which can only be killed in exactly one way within the rules.
That’s literally what the word lawful means.
There’s a reason chaos is usually opposed by “Order” or “Harmony” instead of “law” in other settings
@algotkristoffersson15 that's literally only one of the several definitions of the word lawful and is clearly not what the devs meant.
My thing is impossible situations, and failure to enforce parties supporting their members. If i'm pinned behind cover by a team of crossbowmen out of range of my spells, and my teammates have like 12 tools to help me, there should he some consequences to leaving me behind. Not for lore or story reasons, just for not being a dick reasons. This has happened to me before.
Also, making something that isn't explicitly in the rules impossible even when it's supported in lore, is narratively interesting, and isn't game breaking. Hate that shit. It's like a creativity ban.
6:25 - and also casually carry around about 2 tons of stuff without feeling burdened, several times more with succesful checks, survive nuclear blasts, move basically at the speed of light, fight an army of normal humans one by one and winning after several days of battle, regenerate wounds during the fight, being basically unable to miss an attack - when not straight up punching through armor, they always find an opening in the armor, and other stuff basically worthy of a greek epic... yeah, and also slicing up the first guy in less than 6 seconds after most likely resisting everything they have thrown at them. More stuff to do doesn't mean they are inherently cooler and the OP is an idiot.
The problem is that the encumbrance rules are defined in a way that makes them tedious to calculate, so some DMs don’t bother.
IWMCWD is a matter of maturity, pure and simple. It is as much over-villainized as it is true.
We have (had) two dudes in our campaign look at IWMCWD in very interesting ways:
Both are veteran/optimizer/power gamer-y types of dudes, both are very insistant on playing their builds and characters to the fullest - sometimes to an extent bordering on the impractical and slightly inconsiderate, since we are currently a 16th lvl campaign, and both if them ran casters. Yay. Still, mostly not their fault.
Dude 1 comes in later in to the campaign. His first character - an android samurai that decided her defining character feature would be she would become a.complete materialist, because 'it is fascinating' died, so he come in with a new one. Detailed backstory, npcs, themed, yet still insanely powerful wizard build. Main objective - has been looking foe his girlfriend-wife for the last 1000-ish years (time mumbo-jumbo, he is also a chronurgist). Proceeds to progressively play this jaded wizard dude as an ever more consistent annoyance to anything and anyone around him 'I've just met you guys, I have my goals, you have yours - we are just around eachother for safety in numbers'. He touches stuff all the time 'You can't tell me not to touch stuff. I don't care you think it's dangerous. I found it - it's mine'. You steal it back from him 'Never steal my stuff, or I will kill you!' We spent literal hours of our lives dealing with random ahit he has lifted off royal palaces and such. We have a talk with dude - gets kind of abrasive, knocks it down a peg, but interactions are strained till the end. It all crescendos with his charavter reacting poorly to us resurrecting the progenitors of all vampires, since wizard's race got wiped out by vampires. Actual good rolepllay by dude 1, but ends with him betraying the party and a lengthy and tedious PvP moment, since 5e doesn't want people having fun past a certain point. It is all resolved with minimal damage to everyone. Yay.
Later, we are on our way to make a big dimension-time-jump-thing, because the world needs saving, but breefly meet up with his girlfriend-wife. Dude decides 'Aye, quest fulfilled, IWMCWD' and retires the character, instead of doing the obvious 'I have some important crap to do, but I'll come back for you. After not getting his way exactly in a mini camapign I ran for the DM to take a break, leaves and never comes back.
Dude 2 has been with us from the start, has gone through several characters by completing their arcs. His current one he was very excited for - he is way into Warhammer 40k, so he wants to make sort of a blend of factions and insert into out game world. Backstory out the wazoo. First session we run into a village plagued by a disease. What does his character sugggest? Burn the sick, along with the children, of course - they will only spread this thing further. Great roleplay. In-game stand-off ensues, he backs down. We run the rest of session without a hitch. After the session he goes and stumps us with 'Yeah, sorry, my lady isn't a good fit with the party - what should do with her?' In the end, we agree he tones down the the 'purge with fire' part of her, and all should be good. He is still playing her more than a year later.
Bottom line: it's a matter of if you wanna be selfish and want others to behold how 'amazing' you are at the game, or if you are going to concede to the greater fact that TTRPGs are a collective experience first and foremost, and that personal satisfaction - while important and something to aim for - comes second to group enjoyment and cohesion.
I know someone in the video is already picking a fight about this, but railroading feels bad. When the players' choices don't much matter, and the module just shuffles them along from one empty shell of a scene to the next empty shell of a scene, and the players will roll some dice and they don't have any meaningful interaction in the game? That's railroading and it's an empty experience. I see it often at conventions and it's arguably necessary for filling a strict time slot. I've learned that any D&D game shorter than 2 hours will be empty carbs that are best reserved for ultra-new players who aren't looking for anything satisfying. But any other campaign had better involve the players as participants, not actors following the script in a boring preset play.
I’m currently a one shot DM (hopefully I can get a campaign going eventually) and I always like to do a mix of RP and combat. RP at the beginning, intro to the quest, etc., then you’re doing multiple encounters of combat plus exploring whatever dungeon/area you’re in. Of course, you may RP during combat and exploration.
My players love my quests and honestly I’m just so happy they enjoy it.
I hate DMs who say the narrative supersedes all, if you’re more concerned about telling your story than making sure everyone is having fun you probably shouldn’t be a DM.
When the DM is way too attached to a character, NPC or otherwise. I’m in a game with a new DM that’s trying to make their favorite NPC come off as a burdened but decisive leader, but they’re playing him in a way that makes him seem like a major asshole. We’re all playing the DM’s characters who had their minds scrambled around years back and are supposedly a top rank adventure party. We’re all allowed to play the characters in any way we want, but when we met the NPC, they kept ridiculing us for not being battle-ready enough and one of the players even left after session one.
We started just seeing the character as this needlessly mean douche and naturally started to not like him. Sessions later when the party was still reacting to him in a way the DM didn’t want, they started feeling personally attacked and it took us out of game to explain our side of things about how not liking a character doesn’t mean we’re against them. If they want to DM, I really hope they can learn to not expect the party to love a character as much as the DM running the game does and to separate characters from self.
Hate is a little strong, but I don't like how so many people would rather spend time homebrewing 5e rather than spending the same time learning to play a system that has what they're looking for.
6:36 This! *SO MUCH THIS!!*
I don't care if you like roleplaying as a clown, or as your interpretation of the Joker. If the session has a more serious setting and story, please save your joke characters for less serious settings. I'm trying to get immersed, and anyone who does this is ruining it.
What are the other definitions of metagaming?
Metagaming is acting on Information your character doesn’t know and shouldn’t be able to like knowing to rush out and save the other half of a split party with no communication
I guess it would be more on the definition of "Information you know that your character doesn't". Does your character, for example, know how many hit points they have at any given time?
@@ilovethelegendyes, because the hit points are an abstraction of damage, and they know how wounded they are. Like they don’t know it in terms of numbers but they do know it.
Regarding the "Failing Forwards" trope, I think they're confusing the concept with failing upwards. Failing in a forward direction means that no matter the actions of the players, the story will always progress towards a conclusion of any kind, whether it's good or bad. If the party wipes in combat and die, that's failing forwards to the end of the campaign really quickly. If the party fails a perception check to find a secret door that leads to the end of the dungeon, giving the cultists enough time to summon a demon that then breaks out and fights the party, that's failing forwards to a fight that's likely to be more difficult than if they succeeded the check.
Failing upwards means that if they fail, they're given advantages that are almost as good or even arguably better than if they succeed. Such as if they wipe to monsters in a dungeon, they're woken up with a long rest in the BBEG's room, where they have restraints with a relatively easy check to break out of to start a fight. So it'd be potentially better to fail before the fight than to succeed since they'd most likely not have the long rest to get back their resources.
The core concept of failing forwards just means that you don't let the story completely stop in its tracks just because the party fails to take the correct course of action, by not having plots that revolve entirely around the players taking certain actions. If the goal of a story is to get a magical artefact at the bottom of a dungeon, and they get completely stuck in a room not knowing how to figure out a puzzle. That's probably the best example of a scenario where you don't let the players fail forwards. But even then, you can add other elements, such as a rival treasure hunting team or roaming dungeon monsters, that will leave the story in motion. But it's also a valid decision for the DM to just require the players to find another path through, such as backtracking all the way out to find someone that specializes in the type of room they got stuck in.
Failing forward can be too much if done wrong, but not doing it can be way worse. "The party lost the fight... they all died, the end" is not how most people want their campaign to end.
Also, screw the guy that said "don't allow x is a bad DM" that guy is a dick. Lot's of things are straight up worth banning at character creation, some for being bad for dms to work around like flying races, others for being too overused that you just want to curb it, like sharpshooter feat. Sometimes it's good to introduce rules to ban stuff like earning armor proficiency above what the lowest class you have gave you to begin with, just to force mages to stay with robes and mage armor instead of getting a level into fighter for a suit of plate.
2:30 well, very depends on DM and usage of optional/homebrew rules. Cause such conversations can literally kill the games, when you discuss for 40 minutes action which is worse than just gave up on smth which isnt even a big deal. If DM says "nah magic fog telepors you anyways but only you" or lvl1 npc casting wish is of course discussable, BUT "no i actully can be under water for 10 minutes" or "nah quicksand is not supposed to require str check" or "yes this 2 stuck, its not said so but it ovious it gives this combo despite i have disadvantage"
Are annoying, or in some case player makes a "genious" plan and is mad when plan does not work as he/she thought its supposed to and tries to prove it, had such player, even after other pakyers said "dude this at least particially is not supposed to work by RAW" he insisted. Such discussions takes so much time, so they better not to take place in 4 hours session which is once in a week
"My players did this one tthing I didn't like, so I'll flush this campaign amd it's rules just to get back at them.
Talking it out with them like a normal person? What's that?"
I think people misunderstand something about failing forward because what was described bailing out the players. Failing forward is “you unlock the door after some time, but as you open the door you a patrolling guard notices the door open”. Out of the frying pan into the fire kind of stuff.