0:54 #1 Killing instead of capturing foes 2:24 #2 Talking too much 4:16 #3 Not listening 6:05 #4 Not preparing enough 7:49 #5 Not sharing plans All great points! Keep up the good work!
Another thing to keep in mind, as storytellers: It is possible to give your players 'Wanted Alive' missions as well. I do recommend having the employer tell the players why they wants the target alive. This gives the players a little more options, for they might find a way to complete the primary objective after accidentally killing the target... and thus save some face. It also allows for the employer to operate in bad faith more often, for the person being captured would have a chance to set things straight and create some nice moral dilemmas. Few of these missions should be all it takes to highlight the higher reward payout that comes from interrogating prisoners and bringing criminals back to the magistrate.
Guy, I don't know how you manage to get so much content out a week. Thanks a bunch. I've been DM'ing for over a decade and I still find your advice to be valuable.
Yeah, I mean, what can others say when you always bring foods and drinks with you :D It's like "Hey, you're late again and- ohhh is that beer ?" happens a lot in my games :)
Another mistake Players (and GM's) do, "stepping" on other player. Example: "your character wouldn't do that." or " your character is _ so it would _ ." Fill in the blanks.
I remember when this happened to me based on my alignment. I got pretty annoyed. This is why as a player I do not tell the other players my character's alignment and in the game that I am currently running, the player character's alignments are only known by me and the respective player.
well, to be fair, it depends on the action you tried to do. If you do something that is EXTREMELY out of alignment, I think it is just normal that the GM tells you so. The same applies if you have a flaw that is supposed to make your chacracter act a certain way and you act in a way that is totally opposite to it. Not saying that is was the case, just that this is not ALWAYS a mistake.
The guy that did it had shown that he was very confrontational many times before. He was just nitpicking. My DM and fellow players didn't mind at all. In fact, they were backing me up saying that there was a completely valid reason for what my character did.
Shanz As a GM it's ok to play the voice of reason, but if they still move forward, they should suffer the consequences. I like my players having more option, not less. As for flaws, like GURPS, it is important that they are reminded of character traits. This lead to a different "mistake", staying in character.
I know i don't comment enough, but as a veteran GM and an intermediate Player i want to thank you for these videos. PCing and GMing is like a black belt, there is no mastering the craft, just improving it!
I know a few kids who could really use the advice about shutting up and listening to other players. A player with a character that has low charisma shouldn't be the only one talking. I had this problem with a cleric who insisted on doing all the talking with his 14 charisma...while my elf bard with an 18 charisma sat patiently waiting for him to shut up. xD
mdiem A gray elf tends to not know when to shut up but I have up since the dude was taking the entire table out of any conversations. he wouldn't even ask any of our opinions or thoughts. This was also during 3.0 where stats meant everything.
i feel like his lower charisma doesnt mean he cant be a face. you can handle all the actual heavy persuasion or interrogation scenarios but let him talk when he wants to greet people or get a quest from someone, seems fair to me.
I have a 6 charisma character whose 6 charisma explicitly comes from talking *too* much I get your point of "let the people who are good at talking talk" but sometimes it's better to be bad at the game than being good at the game :P
That was actually a conscious decision I made. A few sessions after starting our second campaign I started taking notes and stapled them together with my other character sheets. I took notes of player names, alignments as well as plot points and character names. Basically everything our DM said was written down. It really helped me focus on what he was saying to make sure I got everything written down. It was also of use because that meant I could accurately explain to the other people some plotpoint they needed to be reminded of.
I have been storytelling for almost 20 years and yet I still find your channel to be amazingly helpful and informative! Hope you keep it up for many more years.
Good advice and great, well structured video title. As a talkative player myself; it helps to use your roleplay to empower and nudge other, quieter, players to talk and interact with NPC's and the world. Adding them into a conversation, bringing them up in the conversation as someone who may have a clearer view or perspective, asking them their thoughts during a debate or discussion, etc. It makes them feel important, adds a new perspective during planning, and leads to overall better cohesion.
As for #4, I've been on both sides of that one. Both over preparing and not preparing enough. It is actually quite hard to get the perfect balance there.
This is a good video, as usual. I do have a point of contention however... If information is only given to one player, and that player has the option to share or not share that information, it's entirely appropriate *and good role-playing* to NOT share it exactly as they received it. While it can hinder the group and the game, it cannot qualify as a mistake that players make. That "telephone game" is both appropriate (as the player determines which parts are worth sharing) and fun (as the GM sees how the players handle the information.) If the GM wants a bit of information to be available to all players, they need to make it available either to everyone at once or through multiple vectors that multiple individuals discover independently.
Merciful Spell was one of my favorite feats, I actually view it as overpowered as all it costs is a feat slot. Not only does this make it so you can 'knock out' enemy with an overwhelmingly powerful spell, it had a ton of other utility. Every spell-slinger has been in a situation where they firebombed their own team, because it seemed the fastest way to end the fight at the time. Instead of relying on a good Reflex save for half damage, merciful spell makes it so you have zero risk of killing your team-mate and still end the fight due to massively overwhelming damage. If you really do need the enemy dead, nothing stops you taking a coup-de-grace afterwards.
In addition to planning, since I wasn't clear what kind of planning you were discussing. it is also good to check with your group about things as players as well. And if you didn't check with them beforehand, then check after to make sure they weren't rubbed the wrong way. My group right now is great so usually, they just say, o no I was totally on board and get that your character was mad at mine. But you want to make sure you are clear what is RP and what isn't, and in particular how deep of an RP your players are ok with.
It is good advice for DMs too. Side story, my DM in the middle of a heated conversation yelled at me to shut my mouth. I was totally ok with it because the RP was great, but he checked in after and was worried he had stepped his bounds. We had a good laugh about it and it made him more comfortable in doing those types of things in the future. So even if you think everyone is on the same page its good to check to help establish boundaries and just make sure everyone is enjoying in the fun.
Moments like this make me realize why roleplay games should be played since a young age. As a former teacher (and former edgy teen), I've seen time and time again kids that grow up into adults that have some big holes in the areas of listening to others, waiting a proper time to speak, sharing ideas with others, etc
I agree with what you said. You see, i do tend to "over perp" for a battle. Use Faeries as my spies, long range assassins, and saboteurs. I have a watch towers like every 0.5 - 0.25 mile on my roads.
Great video as usual, Guy!!! I might add, somewhere in or around that "preparation" portion... It can extend to the character creation, with the advancing rules for feats and flaws... Some Players get a little over-invested (over inventive?) in their feats and flaws, only to start losing track of them in-game... Frankly, I don't really care about the mechanical advantages/disadvantages list on a sheet, so much as I care that you Role Play whatever you have on-sheet relatively well AND consistent... That is to say, I'm not against the min-maxer here... at least, not in so many terms. I'm talking about having a fair list (or worse a huge list) of weird quirks, superstitions, and disadvantageous syndromes, only to forget about half of them before the first roll of dice... It bugs me just a little bit, when the same Player can remember ABSOLUTELY to the letter, every mechanical advantage he's put those points toward... BUT I might be digressing there. Players, you won't look any less competent for only taking one or two quirks or flaws... There's a lot to digest and take note of when you start Role Playing. SO it's okay to limit how weird or particular a character is... AND I'm usually pretty forgiving on the whole as the game develops, and you add to the list of such details... just play it Consistently. I'm similarly hard on any GM for inconsistent play, so don't think I'm just pissy about inconsistency on the PC-side. Far from it... In fact, growing and building that consistency in personality for a PC is a pretty big part of why I generally insist on starting PC's at low levels or level 1... It's to allow the Players some "sandboxy" time to flesh out and explore their character's actions, personas, and littler details before we're embarking "seriously" on the major storyline... or whatever that kind of fuster-cluck would be called, because in my experience, there's never anything resembling a "line". ;o)
I like the evolution of the channel over the months, I'd love to play a game with you some day! On a random note, have you lost weight? Looking really good!
Hi there. I've recently revisited some aspects of the GoT series and I've realised a certain lack of a topic from other channels I hope you could address for me: How do you handle the Law? Are there trials? Trials by combat? What crimes go to which punishments? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help your various gods?
I love that moment where people remember everything differently. Then they all argue about what was true. As a GM it's pretty great to just watch what they do
I became such a good listener that people actually get mad at me for not interrupting them, it’s so alien to most people it became amusing to me. When your right in a “argument” discussion you can let them talk until they actually hear themselves and they eventually realize they are wrong.
I’m rather new to dnd, I’ve only played about two games (one is still in progress) so far your videos have helped me a lot. But i find even during my short time of playing, theres often that one person in your party that is that “edge lord” to say the least. He rarely speaks and is generally really...boring.. to communicate with to say the least. Its like his character doesn’t want to be with the party at al. Plus the fact that he is often quiet and never really seems to care for the rest. Is that a common mistake people do when creating their characters/ playing them. Or have i just been really unlucky with my two games? And approaching the third. That and the people that argues with the dms when something is not going their way is really annoying aswell. Anyways your videos have been super helpful with what I’ve seen so far since i just found you today. And i apologize if I’ve done any misspellings, I’m both not a native speaking (I’m Swedish) and I’m dyslexic. But I’ve been trying to get better non the least.
arty 506, to start with... It's just my experience, but native speakers don't tend to exactly speak English (or type it) so much as mutilate the language and then expect everyone around them to "figure it out"... so don't sweat it too much. As to "That guy" or "the edge lord" type of Player... There are exceptions, but it would seem a sort of standard in gaming... Any time you gather a group of people together, there's a chance for "that guy" or "that gal" to show up... The more people gathered at once, the higher the probability... It's unfortunate, and sometimes with a bit of coaching, can be "fixed". Sometimes, it's just a matter of time before the "edge lord" decides Role Play isn't his or her thing and goes away. Arguing with the GM... yep, annoying. Some of the responsibility (however) can be settled on the GM in some cases, though. A quality GM can navigate the "argument" at proposition, simply responding, "Because of narrative..." meaning that the story needs someone to "be on the receiving end" of whatever, and that's it. Some players will still insist on "advocating their character" to a fault, however, and at some point, the others at the table can call that Player out for poor gamesmanship, or even pose the complaint and suggest a break, before the Player is asked to leave outright... Usually, as a GM, myself, I can settle arguments relatively quickly, and the "narrative reasons" thing is one of my favorite "go-to" methods for it... because most of the time (for me anyway) it's not a lack of understanding game mechanics, feats, or the numbers. I'm simply targeting a certain character either on purpose or randomly (because dice... why not) to move the story forward in a direction I need to move it... I can then discuss patiently however the Player would prefer to justify that situation, and we move on... I have seen, however, where the GM simply doesn't understand the system well enough, but didn't want to "bog things down" and made a call... Then he (or she) finds the argument growingly insurmountable... It's annoying, because with the best intentions, the game still gets "bogged down" and I usually step in to call a break for civility... or just to avoid knocking the sh*t out of one or both arguing parties... (lolz) I do have a lot of tolerance, but when the "conversation" deteriorates the game to a screaming contest full of filth, hate, and obscenity, I draw a line. On the whole, among my best suggestions, occasionally reminding people around the table that it is (after all) just a game, meant to be FUN, and not to take every little thing too seriously is enough. It keeps level heads relatively cool, and the occasional break for a soda (or liquor) can mend most petty issues before we're throwing anything more dangerous than dice. ;o)
To that 1st point about the "edge lord" player, I believe it is a troublesome aspect of a personality type that doesn't fit well with group play. That description sounds something like the "lone wolf" and "reluctant hero" type, which are very popular in various forms of entertainment media but are really hard to play well in a tabletop team-based setting like D&D. In the end, I've seen very few personalities like that one played well and they only did so because they still worked with the group despite their "edgy lone hero" concept.
yeah loners or edge lords happen all the time. You can try to involve them in character. the problem is usually that the concept sounds cool cuz of media and books and what not, but later the players realize that its actually boring to play and even if its still cool in their own head, people realize that the other players are not engaging them or find them annoying. So, they played themselves in a corner and can't really get out of it. So you just go and ask them in character to please help, their skills are needed and, in fact, we wouldn't have survived the last fight without you. This gives them an out. They get to play the reluctant loner still, with their hood up and "cool" non talking stuff but get to play with the party. Or you go the other way (talk to the player first) and have a conflict, not fighting, between your characters. When the do the edgy thing and stand back in the shadows but then can't hold it and start talking to a captured npc, or try to slit their throat, say something like: "ohh he talks!" That way is more difficult and relies on the two players wanting to go that way. but its fun!
arty506 Also new to dnd. Always wanted to play but couldn't find anyone. Finally did... The problem is that we have one silent type, as far as I can remember, never talked in character. One is gold hungry, one is paladin meme lord, one is stoner but ok (stoner because DM likes characters with crippling fault), and last character is edge lord. In short time whole game dissolved from possibility of high fantasy to a edgy meme anime fest incouraged by DM. And all NPCs aren't interested in anything (all on 20+ lvl) and constantly remind us that we are not even close to them (again, classic anime plot)
Yeah every table I have played at has had an edge lord character (even in one of my first games I accidentally became the edge lord). I agree that it isn’t fun because it is so hard to reach those characters and have meaningful interactions. Other than the obvious solution of talking to that player about how their character might open up more, I make sure that any time my character could turn super edgy (especially my rogues and warlocks) I try to write their personalities so they could still interact with people. Maybe they’re closed off not to be dark and brooding but rather because they have poor social skills that the rest of the party could help with. Also YES omg in one of my groups there are a few players that argue CONSTANTLY with the dm and it’s SO ANNOYING. All I can really do is try to refocus them and remind them that the dm does have final say on the rules, but they are so stubborn and I would love a better way to work around this. I’m pretty sure they’re just used to certain rules and styles of play in similar video games (one of them also has a ridiculous amount of knowledge on historical weapons and fighting styles), so I’d love a better way to remind them that games like dnd don’t always operate the same way.
The listening part is genius, people do it too seldomly. Most of all, people interrupt one another once they think they know what the other one wants to say - which again gives you only an answer that you anticipated. And I'm not just talking RPGs here.
I once had a campaign that went on for several months longer than it needed to because my players killed a character they assumed was a part of the villains, but he was actually there to ask for a truce. This happened a couple of times. My NPC was trying to explain it the whole time.
If you could, would you be able to expand further on capturing/subduing foes versus killing them? I have a group where, I wouldn’t call us murder hobos, but it’s one notch down from that. Every single encounter I can think of has ended with us killing the enemy, even when they were: 1. Helpless 2. Restrained 3. Surrendered 4. Clearly willing to assist us 5. Posing no clear threat 6. Is clearly more beneficial to take them alive. I have no idea of how to break this habit, and would like ideas on how.
As my circle's GM, I kinda like it when players who play more self-centered characters (such as a Businessman Warlock who tends to lean on money making opportunities) keep specific information to themselves for personal gain. In my experience it adds to narrative character growth when the character learns their lesson. Such as botching a plan or the rest of the party aligning with someone that they shouldn't when the character with vital information isn't around to say who that person really is etc. In a way it's a trust building trial by necessity and a way for the character to learn that others may be more competent then they are in certain situations meaning they have more reason to trust the rest of the party with said specific information. I probably could have explained that better but the caffeine has yet to kick in.lol
My solution for the players wanting to kill everyone is that the npc quest giver hiring the party to bring the guy back alive. The npc also stressed that the guy they where trying to get is a potential ally, although in that case he wasn't but rather someone that ran a gang in secret. He was executed later, but if it wasn't for his capture the party wouldn't have gotten information on the big bad, and they would have gone against the wishes of their patron quest giver.
A problem about sharing plans that i have experienced is when the players don't even share their plans with the DM. They do one step at the time without anyone knowing what for and so the DM has no chance to work with the player and make something cool or reward for the creativeness.
znazter1027 that is true. When my players\characters talk about their plans I'll keep in mind how the villains or situations are. There have been time where "nope, the evil major would have not thought of that or have no chance of finding out" thus the players have created an advantage Without Skill Checks. Other times i actually give extra reward points for the plan existing regardless of the execution. Its the effort that matters, ya know?
Part of this problem is the over-indulgence online with "anti-meta" hysteria... There's this school of thought that "meta-gaming is bad"... and Players, especially new players, try desperately to "show their stripes" for at least paying attention, by avoiding meta-gaming at any and all costs, even to the detriment of the game/story. The longest standing trouble, is not meta-gaming as a whole... It's the unfair or abusive sharing of player-character knowledge, meaning that just because YOU (Player) have already spoken to the GM and got to see the entire list of monsters on the other side of that screen, does NOT mean YOU (PC) actually knows all the HP and variant tactical values on the other side of the castle walls... The truth is, there's never been anything wrong with "meta-gaming"... Whether you decide to run a "goof" that your PC is about to invent the Zippo lighter in an era where it would not only make the guy richer than Jesus, but where it would be probably the single most world-changing mundane mechanic ever... OR you dubiously let your PC "play along" with the Bard because his arbitrary use of a theatrical "lie" was too painfully obvious... It's still metagaming, but as long as it isn't unfair to the GM or other Players, it's okay... and can even ADD to the fun and story and craft within the game... BUT we end up with some weird misunderstanding of the perils of "meta-gaming" and an unfairly large faction of Players take it to mean, "You don't share NOTHING!"... ;o)
gnarth d'arkanen interesting message there. I tend to agree with you. The problem i think many have is balancing that. Its subjective nature can make it hard to describe, but you have done it rather well. Asking ahead of time the Type of Meta allowed is also a helpful thing to do. For instance i might think advising another PC ok in certain circumstances like if the Player is new or allow advice by another "not there" individual if a knowledge or tactics roll is made.
Thanks, David Gipe... I've had my share of "incidents" with meta... AND for the most part, as a GM, I tend not to sweat it too much, as long as no one is outright "abusive" about it. I've even gone to the territory of "encouraging" meta' in the sense of inter-party conflicts and "goofs" (for instance)... SO, I developed a primitive "hand-signal" code, specifically for the meta' side of PvP conflict or "antics" as it were... Easier by example : The Rogue Player wants an RP-goof, so he's planning a prank on the Barbarian (not always wise) and with our system, he explains his move on the unattended Barbarian's tent, where a precious tribal totem piece is stored under the pack at the North end (superstitiously)... The Player then looks to the Barbarian Player and "waves a thumb" without saying anymore... This is our signal "I'm just making a goof, relax... Okay?" If the Barbarian Player agrees, he can posture however he likes, but he returns a "thumbs up"... meaning "okay, go ahead... I'll play along, but not actively try to kill you." If there's some territory (like the totem superstition) the Barbarian Player can give "thumb level or teetering" meaning, "I can play along, but watch it... nothing sacred..." Or "I'll warn you 'thumb down' before I kill you." AND if the Barbarian wants nothing to do with a goof, the Player can (of course) return a "thumb down" meaning obviously, "DON'T go there... dead." Table-side, unless you're in the habit of watching hand-gestures, the Players can "posture" or make faces, or whatever all they like, the honor system (code?) is strictly tied to the gestures themselves, so NO fair giving a "thumbs up" purely for the excuse to kill the Rogue... It's plenty meta', but because it's meta' in a sense to AVOID abuse of Players or the Game, it's a valuable add. It also avoids "breaking immersion" for those who like the RP aspect (a bit too much?) because once you get used to it, you don't even really notice unless you're specifically looking for it (as in permissions)... The only meta that really ever pissed me off was the kind of Player (or GM for the matter) who would purposefully listen in and take advantages over what he or she wasn't supposed to legitimately know about... OR would specifically rush to get such secrets and plots to exactly the person(s) at the table who were not supposed to know... It deteriorates the whole quality of the game, and for someone who pours real effort into even an on-the-spot plan to add some drama and a chance at relevant character growth, I find it extremely distasteful to have someone else screw the whole thing up, just for the sake of screwing it up... OR simply because he/she wasn't in the spotlight for it. For Veterans aiding new Players, I've always encouraged coaching and commentary, when and where ever useful... As much as I prefer a lone PC figure out a resolution to his own troubles for having "wandered off" on his own and gotten into trouble, I don't take a lot of pride (personally) in killing PC's so much as stressing Players out... It's the sweat and tears that make it interesting. Right? ;o)
I'm playing over Roll20 and one thing I notice people in my group tend to do is roll their checks (when they know they have a high modifier for it) without the DM asking for a roll. Our rogue for instance, rolls sleight of hand checks to conceal loot from other party members even if our characters are 5 or 10 feet away from him and directly in line of sight looking straight at him. If he says "I take this item from the chest without anyone noticing it" and somebody else dares say something like "But my character is standing RIGHT BEHIND YOU! *facepalm*" he will just automatically roll a sleight of hand check and be like "Ah! 28! You know nothing" even completely negating our passive perceptions (I'm sure there has to be rules for PP as well). It's not only annoying because he's rolling without the DM asking him to, but also because he's denying us the chance of roleplaying our characters speaking to his character about why he's doing it and thus getting to know his character better.
I found your videos very helpful since I started playing D&D not too long ago. I agree with your five points but I would like to add one and that's don't try to out DM the DM. It's that person's game your player if you have a problem with something you did there are ways to voice it instead of just constantly trying to fight against them and ruining the good time for everyone else, it's toxic it's a pain in the ass and it needs to stop.
On the point of sharing information, do you, as the DM, step in and correct the player if he has misunderstood information you've given out? I sometimes find myself reminding a player about what they heard when they start repeating incorrect details.
#1 0:53 Killing enemies rather than defeating them! #6 2:04 Do not do other distracting things, like construction work, while playing. #2 2:24 Talking too much. #3 4:17 Listening (properly) to others. #4 6:05 Not preparing enough. #5 7:50 Not sharing plans. #1 - I would say this mistake is most often done by the GM, as the GM (or in this case: DM for Disaster Master) do not allow for other options. It can even be the RPG system that are the reason for this behaviour, as several systems only award XP to players when they kill enemies. So, if this is a problem, then changing to another RPG system (not rewarding the players for kills only) can be a cure for it! #2 - Far more often done by GMs than players! GMs so focused at telling a story /presenting a world, that the GM forget to incorporate the players in the story / world! #3 - Again far more often done by GMs who listen(?) for the players to say what the GMs expect the players to say! #4 - Well, the player who show up unprepared can be frustrating, but sometimes we have to accept them as we then is enough people to actually play... #4 & #5 - If the players do not prepare/share plans, it can be due to the GM. I have been spectator to a session, where I intercepted the GM just after the session as he was about to give those in the group who did not plan ahead more XP than those who did! His argument for distributing the XP, the way he was about to do, was that those not planning did succeed in what they did whereas those planning did fail. I managed to get him to realise that those planning did give him both ideas at how the plan could fail and more time to think up a way making the plan fail, whereas those who was quick to act did not leave him with ideas or time to think up ways they could fail! When I told him he could see it himself, but had I not intercepted he would not have noticed. So I say: Unconscious decisions made by GMs do that quick action more often succeed than carefully laid out plans, and thus teach the players that rash action is the way to success! #6 - Yes, so annoying!
Killing instead of capturing foes sounds more like a GM problem to me in that it sounds more like a problem that would only arise had the GM frequently wanted that option to be considered / taken up. From there surely it's better to say that maybe the GM could do a little more to hint at their personally-preferred options, and if they did and nothing happens regularly, then maybe the more valid point is that players don't experiment / take GM hints / advice
On the notion of talking to much, if i try to avoid talking or acting to allow my party they usually just kinda dont act either. Do you have any advice on maybe prodding them into action or getting them more involved?
TheFatFondler - I can only suggest talking to them next session about what they want out of the game. Are they hesitant because they don't know what to do? Are they worried about being judged for their ideas or opinions? Are they just shy? It may take a while but some encouragement might be needed to break them out of their shell. Making the campaign about things they might care about so they can relate to NPCs needing their help also keeps them involved and willing to actually do things.
Also, it's just possible that they are just the spectator type. I spent all my childhood, from 4 to 19 only just looking at my father and his friends playing their RPG games, and it's only been 4 years that i've began playing with them. Some people just come to the table for a chance at seeing the GM story unfolding :p.
First point might seem a bit dependent on campaign, though. If you're hacking through the jungles of Chult in Tomb of Annihilation, you're really not going to be focusing on capturing a camadan or something.
All of these are just life skills in general. Listen to each other, communicate with your team, always come prepared, and dont kill everybody you run into.
For the talking part, I'm really bad at that. Especially since IRL I'm the idea guy of my friends. So it's a though line to tread between talking to much, and talking way to little.
I had a group that was following an orc group which would have lead them to a greater threat. They successfully executed all of them... sigh... so the greater threat was left to grow stronger. They had their hands full when the hoard descended on them.
Funny enough when we played Lost mine of Phandelver (misspelled I am sure) and we got ambushed by Goblin I shouted that they should take one alive. I took a conscious decision to not talk very must during our first session and mainly listen. The reason for my choice is: I want the 6 new players to have fun discovering example oh the monster we fight is a Troll or this trap is construct to escape it you have to move backwards. It's also a good way for my character to gleam how trustworthy my party memeber are (he/she is a little slow to trust non Elves due having a girl he like kidnapped and only having a dark Cloak with a green scorpion symbol as clue). I normally spend the day after the session to evaluate if their was anything I could have done better like example RPG my spell cast, which spell would be more useful for the adventure and if this situation happen how will my character react. Maybe I don't share the plan with others due to planing on betraying them.
If I could add to the idea that players can be to kill focused, I think DM's need to think about this too. If you've set up a situation where the players are fighting groups of bandits, goblins, or anything sentient really, why would they fight to the last man standing. They wouldn't and shouldn't. Once it becomes clear that the players are going to win, enemies should reconsider their options and either flee or surrender. Groups of enemies that act like brainless canon fodder are going to be treated like brainless canon fodder and be killed. If enemies appear to the players like they have a sense of their own, I have found my players to be more likely to treat them as such as well.
I just wish my players would ask NPCs questions to learn about the world or for tips to accomplish the mission. They struggle so much to figure out what's going. Hey, how about asking that wise wizard or guard captain or bartender some questions.
The party capturing foes that the GM didn't anticipate would be interrogated can be really stressful for the GM when he/she has to improvise the answer to all these questions constantly.
Yes pleeeeeaaaase shut up from time to time ! I'm a very shy and non-talkative person, so if no one else shuts up I simply cannot speak ! It's kind of the opposite problem, but wouldn't it be much easier to not talk than to actively try to place your voice in a conversation when you're not used to ?
For point number one. There is also the opposite. Capturing everyone, and spending an entire session questioning them just in case the last eight lied to you.
The murder hobo mentality is baked into most RPGs by granting XP for “overcoming” monsters. Most players interpret that to be killing them. Monte Cook's Cypher System (Numenera, The Strange, God’s of the Fall, Predation, Unmasked, and the generic Cypher System rules) does not, it awards XP for discoveries. It's a refreshing change.
Actually, the DMG's and modules have always suggested (at least to my knowledge) that XP be rewarded for "defeat"... Whatever "defeat" constitutes, counts for the XP... so even that my third level, half-elven Fighter Mage has absolutely ZERO chance of killing a Terrasque... a truly clever plan and operation to "defeat" the thing is possible, and can garner rewards. With the gains in popularity for D&D, there's a certain side-effect, of "well... they'll just let ANYONE play this game, now..." It's true, and actually, they should... don't get me wrong there. BUT if you understand the connotation, there's going to be just mountains and mountains of stock answers and mediocrity that comes with all the popularity. Not everyone even CAN be the next Shakespeare, Tolkien, or Pratchett... It's easy to get frustrated, but Patience and Tolerance are both virtues... A little coaching and occasional "counter intuitive suggestion" at the table-side, can help... It takes time, but in the longer run, tends to be worth the investment. ;o)
also, the suggestion that XP be awarded for things besides overcoming enemies (for discoveries, social interactions, etc.) has been around for a long time too.
I never heard of three sided dice before... now that I've seen one, I just have to ask... what the actual Frick?!? Four sided are pure evil, but those three sided... things... hurt my understanding of geometry.
#6 is not being prepared. Have your character sheet ready to go. If we leveled, have that done. Same thing for DMs. Know what is happening this session and don't spend half the time going through notes or otherwise looking things up.
"Broken Telephone" used to be called Chinese Whispers, but I guess that's not a valid name for it anymore. I can understand that, but I'm just mentioning it 'cause I've never heard it called the former before.
There was once a village full of everyday people, I had the most evil NPC of all time dressed with white robes and seem so innocent and peaceful and she gave a quest to the players to burn this village because the people there were really bad because reasons. The players totally destroyed that village living no survivors, they were rewarded with plenty of money and went to the next quest from the same quest giver. Slaying the minotaur that was blocking the bridge, the minotaur was innocent again and the players didn't know that the quest givers were the biggest organization in the world having more power even of the 3 kings leading the lands of a world that I made.. anyway. Instead of slaying the minotaur the tried to talk to him, one knew the language and with a high roll he actually learned the full story. Basically one of the kings slayed his whole clan and this is why he was blocking the bridge etc etc etc... anyway. The party went and assassinate the king and succeeded and then they were wanted in the whole world and tried to establish a new group of rebels and the story took a HUGE NEW turn. So to all players, please be like that, try to do new things, the story feels generic and empty if you just follow it.
I generally hate killing npcs unless they would do a lot more harm alive. Sadly, my fellow players always seem to rather just kill them and be done with it. It's so much more interesting to try to talk to one and try to understand it. Sure, if it's insane, maybe take him out, but murder hoboing is so boring.
Here's one to think on. 'Turning your nose up' at the GM's adventure. This covers a wide variety things, but the major thing is the GM's 'basic building blocks' are being foiled if the players disrespect the very existence of your narrative, whether they're ignoring or killing NPC's indiscriminately on a whim or due to boredom, or refusing to investigate anything besides a corpse they can loot. The adventure can go off the rails, yes, but there is a basic 'ground level' of construction provided for the adventure. Perhaps the GM didn't bait the adventure correctly and failed to provide enough adventuring 'wiggle room' to support the material he or she prepared. This may be difficult to recognize, but you have to realize the GM's efforts are to be respected and appreciated by the players, though the fruits of those efforts are on a different level. The players then can interact in a world with rules which make sense. This isn't just a player issue, either. Baiting the adventure properly is important. The GM may need to move or adjust 'traps' (whether it is roleplay traps, combat traps, riddle traps, puzzle traps, or actual mechanical traps). Moving 'traps' around narratively and chronologically may effectively provide the adventure your players need to play their characters more accurately. Such being said, the players should help the GM by providing feedback (without egregiously interrupting the game flow), even better if the players are discussing ideas in character. Also, asking the GM questions about the situation and the surroundings helps to give the world form (not just for one player, fortunately), and can even give the GM a proper cognitive boost, as Game Masters are always learning, and an evolving world is a lively world. Such said, a lively world awakens the imagination of your players and drives the adventure forward. Interestingly enough, this video's points of advice can also be interpreted to help with the building and running of NPC's, denoting an abundance or lack of cohesion with player characters and other NPC's, depending on your NPC's level of cooperation. Even further, you can use NPC's bickering amongst each other and/or witholding information from eachother in a roleplay encounter as a method to educate the players on the depth of your world and the value of cooperation in a TTRPG.
yes it was "Mercy" in my last game, let the paladin live after killing the gunslinger and wizard. and totally not framing him for their murder so that no one suspected infiltration and theft.
you must mean they DO all these things, MAKE all these mistakes. i think it is an important distinction, because if you say "ARE" it implies that they can't change/improve.
why not a realm where the players are the monters and the monsters are the civilized races. wouldnt the humans,elves, etc be the monsters if you look at it from the monsters perspective???
About the "not listening/not sharing information" part: NPC (me as the DM): "A village near the mountains got destroyed in a horrible fire!" Player: "Got it" *player rejoins the group* Player: "There is a dragon near the mountain, destroyed a village!" I thought about correcting him, but maybe he was RPing, so I didn't say anything. And watched the group prepare for a dragonhunt for one hour. When they went to the destroyed village, there naturally wasn't a dragon, but a fire demon. Player: "But you said dragon????" Me: "No, no I didn't. Not once. I said it got burned down!" Player: "Obviously by a dragon!" Me: "Apparently not..." They managed to win the fight, even though being completly unprepared...but boy will I intervene next time some dumbfuck shares his expectations and not the stuff I really said...
In defense of that "slip"... 2e's mechanic (as I recall) was to add +1 to hit, +2 damage for every proficiency "stacked" on a weapon... SO... mechanics occasionally get tweaked from edition to edition, and not everyone reads as carefully as (maybe) they should... meh. We (Players and GM's) are human... Showing a measure of patience with each other will help in navigating mountains of drek, even for the very rarest of occasional dramatic gem. ;o)
As the players fully kill their enemies even when both enemies seem to fighting each other here... and per say orcs vs goblins with a allosaurus as a pet??? "Nothing interesting, make sure theres no survivors" Yeah that wasn't purposely interesting or weird to make them ask questions or such... just outright genocide. That's what I have planned when they outright kill every creature there... one hex in the map is without life.
Talking too much : I’ve had first hand experience of that We have a player who is a gnome with absurdly high charisma who can basically talk his way out of everything. While he isn’t incorrect in his decision making (after all he is the captain) but it feels like his character dictates all the decision for our party and instead of feeling like a player, you feel like an npc. Basically it takes all the tension out of situation because he can basically talk his way out of it and that it feels like the party is playing Simon says rather than dnd
Careful there Guy, you're starting to wander into clickbait territory with that title. Especially with the random caps on MISTAKES that just looks ugly when the rest of the title is properly capitalized. A better title would be 5 Common Role Playing Mistakes if you ask me.
Oh he actually changed it, that's awesome. It was originally just 5 Role Playing MISTAKES you may be making. It wasn't actual clickbait but it was close to it as I've noticed that proper clickbaiters have taken to mostly proper capitalization but one or two words have been caps locked these days. I'm fairly certain what happened there was that Guy saw the trend and decided to copy it without realizing it wasn't the greatest thing to copy.
It's also possible that when he wrote it, he felt he should cap this word. When I'm writing on something that bothers me, I tend to cap a lot to emphasize on what irritates me.
Top #6: Play your character! If you play an orc barbarian, an elven mage and a gnomish tinkerer and you always have the same personality and the same APPROACH to problem solving, you are missing soooo much of what means to role play!
0:54 #1 Killing instead of capturing foes
2:24 #2 Talking too much
4:16 #3 Not listening
6:05 #4 Not preparing enough
7:49 #5 Not sharing plans
All great points! Keep up the good work!
You forgot #1.5 Doing heavy construction while roleplaying.
Another thing to keep in mind, as storytellers:
It is possible to give your players 'Wanted Alive' missions as well.
I do recommend having the employer tell the players why they wants the target alive. This gives the players a little more options, for they might find a way to complete the primary objective after accidentally killing the target... and thus save some face. It also allows for the employer to operate in bad faith more often, for the person being captured would have a chance to set things straight and create some nice moral dilemmas.
Few of these missions should be all it takes to highlight the higher reward payout that comes from interrogating prisoners and bringing criminals back to the magistrate.
Guy, I don't know how you manage to get so much content out a week. Thanks a bunch. I've been DM'ing for over a decade and I still find your advice to be valuable.
Most of my mistakes are covered by bringing snacks.
Yeah, I mean, what can others say when you always bring foods and drinks with you :D
It's like "Hey, you're late again and- ohhh is that beer ?" happens a lot in my games :)
Me too. I tend to talk alot but my group lets lit slide cause i bring cupcakes and ice cream.
Caleb Morgan wooo nice, I wish you could come into my games too :D
One of my players brings a fresh baked cake to 90% of our games. I would gladly swap the cake for the player being prepared and engaged.
A party member showed up late to a session with a box of pizza once but he was also the first one there since everyone else was late
Another mistake Players (and GM's) do, "stepping" on other player. Example: "your character wouldn't do that." or " your character is _ so it would _ ." Fill in the blanks.
Also applies to character creation.
I remember when this happened to me based on my alignment. I got pretty annoyed.
This is why as a player I do not tell the other players my character's alignment and in the game that I am currently running, the player character's alignments are only known by me and the respective player.
well, to be fair, it depends on the action you tried to do. If you do something that is EXTREMELY out of alignment, I think it is just normal that the GM tells you so. The same applies if you have a flaw that is supposed to make your chacracter act a certain way and you act in a way that is totally opposite to it.
Not saying that is was the case, just that this is not ALWAYS a mistake.
The guy that did it had shown that he was very confrontational many times before. He was just nitpicking. My DM and fellow players didn't mind at all. In fact, they were backing me up saying that there was a completely valid reason for what my character did.
Shanz As a GM it's ok to play the voice of reason, but if they still move forward, they should suffer the consequences. I like my players having more option, not less.
As for flaws, like GURPS, it is important that they are reminded of character traits. This lead to a different "mistake", staying in character.
I know i don't comment enough, but as a veteran GM and an intermediate Player i want to thank you for these videos. PCing and GMing is like a black belt, there is no mastering the craft, just improving it!
I know a few kids who could really use the advice about shutting up and listening to other players. A player with a character that has low charisma shouldn't be the only one talking. I had this problem with a cleric who insisted on doing all the talking with his 14 charisma...while my elf bard with an 18 charisma sat patiently waiting for him to shut up. xD
1, a 14 charisma is not low.
2, maybe what makes that 18 CHA is the elf's sexy silence.
mdiem A gray elf tends to not know when to shut up but I have up since the dude was taking the entire table out of any conversations. he wouldn't even ask any of our opinions or thoughts.
This was also during 3.0 where stats meant everything.
Annoying as that is, remember that low-charisma people often won't shut up in real life too.
i feel like his lower charisma doesnt mean he cant be a face. you can handle all the actual heavy persuasion or interrogation scenarios but let him talk when he wants to greet people or get a quest from someone, seems fair to me.
I have a 6 charisma character whose 6 charisma explicitly comes from talking *too* much
I get your point of "let the people who are good at talking talk" but sometimes it's better to be bad at the game than being good at the game :P
That was actually a conscious decision I made. A few sessions after starting our second campaign I started taking notes and stapled them together with my other character sheets. I took notes of player names, alignments as well as plot points and character names. Basically everything our DM said was written down. It really helped me focus on what he was saying to make sure I got everything written down. It was also of use because that meant I could accurately explain to the other people some plotpoint they needed to be reminded of.
I have been storytelling for almost 20 years and yet I still find your channel to be amazingly helpful and informative! Hope you keep it up for many more years.
Good advice and great, well structured video title. As a talkative player myself; it helps to use your roleplay to empower and nudge other, quieter, players to talk and interact with NPC's and the world.
Adding them into a conversation, bringing them up in the conversation as someone who may have a clearer view or perspective, asking them their thoughts during a debate or discussion, etc. It makes them feel important, adds a new perspective during planning, and leads to overall better cohesion.
Is it just me or do you look really good today. I think it's the jacket
I thought it might be something with his hair. I could be wrong, but my gut was telling me it looked different.
He's raised his charisma
i think it's the hair... it is actually "styled" in this video and not (so much) in other videos.
As for #4, I've been on both sides of that one. Both over preparing and not preparing enough. It is actually quite hard to get the perfect balance there.
I've started GMing my 1st game. You're videos have been a great help, thank you.
This is a good video, as usual. I do have a point of contention however...
If information is only given to one player, and that player has the option to share or not share that information, it's entirely appropriate *and good role-playing* to NOT share it exactly as they received it. While it can hinder the group and the game, it cannot qualify as a mistake that players make. That "telephone game" is both appropriate (as the player determines which parts are worth sharing) and fun (as the GM sees how the players handle the information.)
If the GM wants a bit of information to be available to all players, they need to make it available either to everyone at once or through multiple vectors that multiple individuals discover independently.
Merciful Spell was one of my favorite feats, I actually view it as overpowered as all it costs is a feat slot.
Not only does this make it so you can 'knock out' enemy with an overwhelmingly powerful spell, it had a ton of other utility. Every spell-slinger has been in a situation where they firebombed their own team, because it seemed the fastest way to end the fight at the time. Instead of relying on a good Reflex save for half damage, merciful spell makes it so you have zero risk of killing your team-mate and still end the fight due to massively overwhelming damage. If you really do need the enemy dead, nothing stops you taking a coup-de-grace afterwards.
In addition to planning, since I wasn't clear what kind of planning you were discussing. it is also good to check with your group about things as players as well. And if you didn't check with them beforehand, then check after to make sure they weren't rubbed the wrong way. My group right now is great so usually, they just say, o no I was totally on board and get that your character was mad at mine. But you want to make sure you are clear what is RP and what isn't, and in particular how deep of an RP your players are ok with.
It is good advice for DMs too. Side story, my DM in the middle of a heated conversation yelled at me to shut my mouth. I was totally ok with it because the RP was great, but he checked in after and was worried he had stepped his bounds. We had a good laugh about it and it made him more comfortable in doing those types of things in the future. So even if you think everyone is on the same page its good to check to help establish boundaries and just make sure everyone is enjoying in the fun.
Moments like this make me realize why roleplay games should be played since a young age. As a former teacher (and former edgy teen), I've seen time and time again kids that grow up into adults that have some big holes in the areas of listening to others, waiting a proper time to speak, sharing ideas with others, etc
I am not sure if role playing games change peoples behaviour here.
I zoned out while you were talking about listening so I could probably use some practice there lol
I agree with what you said. You see, i do tend to "over perp" for a battle. Use Faeries as my spies, long range assassins, and saboteurs. I have a watch towers like every 0.5 - 0.25 mile on my roads.
04:39 that is some wisdom we all need to listen to.
Great video as usual, Guy!!!
I might add, somewhere in or around that "preparation" portion... It can extend to the character creation, with the advancing rules for feats and flaws... Some Players get a little over-invested (over inventive?) in their feats and flaws, only to start losing track of them in-game... Frankly, I don't really care about the mechanical advantages/disadvantages list on a sheet, so much as I care that you Role Play whatever you have on-sheet relatively well AND consistent...
That is to say, I'm not against the min-maxer here... at least, not in so many terms. I'm talking about having a fair list (or worse a huge list) of weird quirks, superstitions, and disadvantageous syndromes, only to forget about half of them before the first roll of dice... It bugs me just a little bit, when the same Player can remember ABSOLUTELY to the letter, every mechanical advantage he's put those points toward... BUT I might be digressing there.
Players, you won't look any less competent for only taking one or two quirks or flaws... There's a lot to digest and take note of when you start Role Playing. SO it's okay to limit how weird or particular a character is... AND I'm usually pretty forgiving on the whole as the game develops, and you add to the list of such details... just play it Consistently.
I'm similarly hard on any GM for inconsistent play, so don't think I'm just pissy about inconsistency on the PC-side. Far from it... In fact, growing and building that consistency in personality for a PC is a pretty big part of why I generally insist on starting PC's at low levels or level 1... It's to allow the Players some "sandboxy" time to flesh out and explore their character's actions, personas, and littler details before we're embarking "seriously" on the major storyline... or whatever that kind of fuster-cluck would be called, because in my experience, there's never anything resembling a "line". ;o)
I like the evolution of the channel over the months, I'd love to play a game with you some day!
On a random note, have you lost weight? Looking really good!
Hi there.
I've recently revisited some aspects of the GoT series and I've realised a certain lack of a topic from other channels I hope you could address for me: How do you handle the Law? Are there trials? Trials by combat? What crimes go to which punishments? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help your various gods?
I love that moment where people remember everything differently. Then they all argue about what was true. As a GM it's pretty great to just watch what they do
I became such a good listener that people actually get mad at me for not interrupting them, it’s so alien to most people it became amusing to me.
When your right in a “argument” discussion you can let them talk until they actually hear themselves and they eventually realize they are wrong.
Great advice on speaking and listening - and applicable to life in general! Thanks
I’m rather new to dnd, I’ve only played about two games (one is still in progress) so far your videos have helped me a lot. But i find even during my short time of playing, theres often that one person in your party that is that “edge lord” to say the least. He rarely speaks and is generally really...boring.. to communicate with to say the least. Its like his character doesn’t want to be with the party at al. Plus the fact that he is often quiet and never really seems to care for the rest.
Is that a common mistake people do when creating their characters/ playing them. Or have i just been really unlucky with my two games? And approaching the third.
That and the people that argues with the dms when something is not going their way is really annoying aswell.
Anyways your videos have been super helpful with what I’ve seen so far since i just found you today. And i apologize if I’ve done any misspellings, I’m both not a native speaking (I’m Swedish) and I’m dyslexic. But I’ve been trying to get better non the least.
arty 506, to start with... It's just my experience, but native speakers don't tend to exactly speak English (or type it) so much as mutilate the language and then expect everyone around them to "figure it out"... so don't sweat it too much.
As to "That guy" or "the edge lord" type of Player... There are exceptions, but it would seem a sort of standard in gaming... Any time you gather a group of people together, there's a chance for "that guy" or "that gal" to show up... The more people gathered at once, the higher the probability... It's unfortunate, and sometimes with a bit of coaching, can be "fixed". Sometimes, it's just a matter of time before the "edge lord" decides Role Play isn't his or her thing and goes away.
Arguing with the GM... yep, annoying. Some of the responsibility (however) can be settled on the GM in some cases, though. A quality GM can navigate the "argument" at proposition, simply responding, "Because of narrative..." meaning that the story needs someone to "be on the receiving end" of whatever, and that's it. Some players will still insist on "advocating their character" to a fault, however, and at some point, the others at the table can call that Player out for poor gamesmanship, or even pose the complaint and suggest a break, before the Player is asked to leave outright...
Usually, as a GM, myself, I can settle arguments relatively quickly, and the "narrative reasons" thing is one of my favorite "go-to" methods for it... because most of the time (for me anyway) it's not a lack of understanding game mechanics, feats, or the numbers. I'm simply targeting a certain character either on purpose or randomly (because dice... why not) to move the story forward in a direction I need to move it... I can then discuss patiently however the Player would prefer to justify that situation, and we move on...
I have seen, however, where the GM simply doesn't understand the system well enough, but didn't want to "bog things down" and made a call... Then he (or she) finds the argument growingly insurmountable... It's annoying, because with the best intentions, the game still gets "bogged down" and I usually step in to call a break for civility... or just to avoid knocking the sh*t out of one or both arguing parties... (lolz) I do have a lot of tolerance, but when the "conversation" deteriorates the game to a screaming contest full of filth, hate, and obscenity, I draw a line.
On the whole, among my best suggestions, occasionally reminding people around the table that it is (after all) just a game, meant to be FUN, and not to take every little thing too seriously is enough. It keeps level heads relatively cool, and the occasional break for a soda (or liquor) can mend most petty issues before we're throwing anything more dangerous than dice. ;o)
To that 1st point about the "edge lord" player, I believe it is a troublesome aspect of a personality type that doesn't fit well with group play. That description sounds something like the "lone wolf" and "reluctant hero" type, which are very popular in various forms of entertainment media but are really hard to play well in a tabletop team-based setting like D&D. In the end, I've seen very few personalities like that one played well and they only did so because they still worked with the group despite their "edgy lone hero" concept.
yeah loners or edge lords happen all the time. You can try to involve them in character. the problem is usually that the concept sounds cool cuz of media and books and what not, but later the players realize that its actually boring to play and even if its still cool in their own head, people realize that the other players are not engaging them or find them annoying. So, they played themselves in a corner and can't really get out of it. So you just go and ask them in character to please help, their skills are needed and, in fact, we wouldn't have survived the last fight without you. This gives them an out. They get to play the reluctant loner still, with their hood up and "cool" non talking stuff but get to play with the party. Or you go the other way (talk to the player first) and have a conflict, not fighting, between your characters. When the do the edgy thing and stand back in the shadows but then can't hold it and start talking to a captured npc, or try to slit their throat, say something like: "ohh he talks!" That way is more difficult and relies on the two players wanting to go that way. but its fun!
arty506 Also new to dnd. Always wanted to play but couldn't find anyone. Finally did... The problem is that we have one silent type, as far as I can remember, never talked in character. One is gold hungry, one is paladin meme lord, one is stoner but ok (stoner because DM likes characters with crippling fault), and last character is edge lord. In short time whole game dissolved from possibility of high fantasy to a edgy meme anime fest incouraged by DM. And all NPCs aren't interested in anything (all on 20+ lvl) and constantly remind us that we are not even close to them (again, classic anime plot)
Yeah every table I have played at has had an edge lord character (even in one of my first games I accidentally became the edge lord). I agree that it isn’t fun because it is so hard to reach those characters and have meaningful interactions. Other than the obvious solution of talking to that player about how their character might open up more, I make sure that any time my character could turn super edgy (especially my rogues and warlocks) I try to write their personalities so they could still interact with people. Maybe they’re closed off not to be dark and brooding but rather because they have poor social skills that the rest of the party could help with.
Also YES omg in one of my groups there are a few players that argue CONSTANTLY with the dm and it’s SO ANNOYING. All I can really do is try to refocus them and remind them that the dm does have final say on the rules, but they are so stubborn and I would love a better way to work around this. I’m pretty sure they’re just used to certain rules and styles of play in similar video games (one of them also has a ridiculous amount of knowledge on historical weapons and fighting styles), so I’d love a better way to remind them that games like dnd don’t always operate the same way.
The listening part is genius, people do it too seldomly. Most of all, people interrupt one another once they think they know what the other one wants to say - which again gives you only an answer that you anticipated.
And I'm not just talking RPGs here.
I once had a campaign that went on for several months longer than it needed to because my players killed a character they assumed was a part of the villains, but he was actually there to ask for a truce. This happened a couple of times. My NPC was trying to explain it the whole time.
If you could, would you be able to expand further on capturing/subduing foes versus killing them? I have a group where, I wouldn’t call us murder hobos, but it’s one notch down from that. Every single encounter I can think of has ended with us killing the enemy, even when they were:
1. Helpless
2. Restrained
3. Surrendered
4. Clearly willing to assist us
5. Posing no clear threat
6. Is clearly more beneficial to take them alive.
I have no idea of how to break this habit, and would like ideas on how.
Absolutely wonderful Guy. Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Alicia from Sweden
As my circle's GM, I kinda like it when players who play more self-centered characters (such as a Businessman Warlock who tends to lean on money making opportunities) keep specific information to themselves for personal gain. In my experience it adds to narrative character growth when the character learns their lesson. Such as botching a plan or the rest of the party aligning with someone that they shouldn't when the character with vital information isn't around to say who that person really is etc.
In a way it's a trust building trial by necessity and a way for the character to learn that others may be more competent then they are in certain situations meaning they have more reason to trust the rest of the party with said specific information.
I probably could have explained that better but the caffeine has yet to kick in.lol
I heard the next door noises, and took my headphones off to make sure nobody was in my house uninvited.
My solution for the players wanting to kill everyone is that the npc quest giver hiring the party to bring the guy back alive. The npc also stressed that the guy they where trying to get is a potential ally, although in that case he wasn't but rather someone that ran a gang in secret. He was executed later, but if it wasn't for his capture the party wouldn't have gotten information on the big bad, and they would have gone against the wishes of their patron quest giver.
A problem about sharing plans that i have experienced is when the players don't even share their plans with the DM. They do one step at the time without anyone knowing what for and so the DM has no chance to work with the player and make something cool or reward for the creativeness.
znazter1027 that is true. When my players\characters talk about their plans I'll keep in mind how the villains or situations are. There have been time where "nope, the evil major would have not thought of that or have no chance of finding out" thus the players have created an advantage Without Skill Checks. Other times i actually give extra reward points for the plan existing regardless of the execution. Its the effort that matters, ya know?
Part of this problem is the over-indulgence online with "anti-meta" hysteria... There's this school of thought that "meta-gaming is bad"... and Players, especially new players, try desperately to "show their stripes" for at least paying attention, by avoiding meta-gaming at any and all costs, even to the detriment of the game/story.
The longest standing trouble, is not meta-gaming as a whole... It's the unfair or abusive sharing of player-character knowledge, meaning that just because YOU (Player) have already spoken to the GM and got to see the entire list of monsters on the other side of that screen, does NOT mean YOU (PC) actually knows all the HP and variant tactical values on the other side of the castle walls...
The truth is, there's never been anything wrong with "meta-gaming"... Whether you decide to run a "goof" that your PC is about to invent the Zippo lighter in an era where it would not only make the guy richer than Jesus, but where it would be probably the single most world-changing mundane mechanic ever... OR you dubiously let your PC "play along" with the Bard because his arbitrary use of a theatrical "lie" was too painfully obvious... It's still metagaming, but as long as it isn't unfair to the GM or other Players, it's okay... and can even ADD to the fun and story and craft within the game...
BUT we end up with some weird misunderstanding of the perils of "meta-gaming" and an unfairly large faction of Players take it to mean, "You don't share NOTHING!"... ;o)
gnarth d'arkanen interesting message there. I tend to agree with you. The problem i think many have is balancing that. Its subjective nature can make it hard to describe, but you have done it rather well. Asking ahead of time the Type of Meta allowed is also a helpful thing to do. For instance i might think advising another PC ok in certain circumstances like if the Player is new or allow advice by another "not there" individual if a knowledge or tactics roll is made.
Thanks, David Gipe...
I've had my share of "incidents" with meta... AND for the most part, as a GM, I tend not to sweat it too much, as long as no one is outright "abusive" about it.
I've even gone to the territory of "encouraging" meta' in the sense of inter-party conflicts and "goofs" (for instance)... SO, I developed a primitive "hand-signal" code, specifically for the meta' side of PvP conflict or "antics" as it were...
Easier by example :
The Rogue Player wants an RP-goof, so he's planning a prank on the Barbarian (not always wise) and with our system, he explains his move on the unattended Barbarian's tent, where a precious tribal totem piece is stored under the pack at the North end (superstitiously)... The Player then looks to the Barbarian Player and "waves a thumb" without saying anymore... This is our signal "I'm just making a goof, relax... Okay?"
If the Barbarian Player agrees, he can posture however he likes, but he returns a "thumbs up"... meaning "okay, go ahead... I'll play along, but not actively try to kill you."
If there's some territory (like the totem superstition) the Barbarian Player can give "thumb level or teetering" meaning, "I can play along, but watch it... nothing sacred..." Or "I'll warn you 'thumb down' before I kill you."
AND if the Barbarian wants nothing to do with a goof, the Player can (of course) return a "thumb down" meaning obviously, "DON'T go there... dead."
Table-side, unless you're in the habit of watching hand-gestures, the Players can "posture" or make faces, or whatever all they like, the honor system (code?) is strictly tied to the gestures themselves, so NO fair giving a "thumbs up" purely for the excuse to kill the Rogue...
It's plenty meta', but because it's meta' in a sense to AVOID abuse of Players or the Game, it's a valuable add. It also avoids "breaking immersion" for those who like the RP aspect (a bit too much?) because once you get used to it, you don't even really notice unless you're specifically looking for it (as in permissions)...
The only meta that really ever pissed me off was the kind of Player (or GM for the matter) who would purposefully listen in and take advantages over what he or she wasn't supposed to legitimately know about... OR would specifically rush to get such secrets and plots to exactly the person(s) at the table who were not supposed to know... It deteriorates the whole quality of the game, and for someone who pours real effort into even an on-the-spot plan to add some drama and a chance at relevant character growth, I find it extremely distasteful to have someone else screw the whole thing up, just for the sake of screwing it up... OR simply because he/she wasn't in the spotlight for it.
For Veterans aiding new Players, I've always encouraged coaching and commentary, when and where ever useful... As much as I prefer a lone PC figure out a resolution to his own troubles for having "wandered off" on his own and gotten into trouble, I don't take a lot of pride (personally) in killing PC's so much as stressing Players out... It's the sweat and tears that make it interesting. Right? ;o)
I´ll show this to my group. Point 5 is a critical one at my table from time to time.
I'm playing over Roll20 and one thing I notice people in my group tend to do is roll their checks (when they know they have a high modifier for it) without the DM asking for a roll. Our rogue for instance, rolls sleight of hand checks to conceal loot from other party members even if our characters are 5 or 10 feet away from him and directly in line of sight looking straight at him. If he says "I take this item from the chest without anyone noticing it" and somebody else dares say something like "But my character is standing RIGHT BEHIND YOU! *facepalm*" he will just automatically roll a sleight of hand check and be like "Ah! 28! You know nothing" even completely negating our passive perceptions (I'm sure there has to be rules for PP as well). It's not only annoying because he's rolling without the DM asking him to, but also because he's denying us the chance of roleplaying our characters speaking to his character about why he's doing it and thus getting to know his character better.
I found your videos very helpful since I started playing D&D not too long ago. I agree with your five points but I would like to add one and that's don't try to out DM the DM. It's that person's game your player if you have a problem with something you did there are ways to voice it instead of just constantly trying to fight against them and ruining the good time for everyone else, it's toxic it's a pain in the ass and it needs to stop.
On the point of sharing information, do you, as the DM, step in and correct the player if he has misunderstood information you've given out? I sometimes find myself reminding a player about what they heard when they start repeating incorrect details.
#1 0:53 Killing enemies rather than defeating them!
#6 2:04 Do not do other distracting things, like construction work, while playing.
#2 2:24 Talking too much.
#3 4:17 Listening (properly) to others.
#4 6:05 Not preparing enough.
#5 7:50 Not sharing plans.
#1 - I would say this mistake is most often done by the GM, as the GM (or in this case: DM for Disaster Master) do not allow for other options. It can even be the RPG system that are the reason for this behaviour, as several systems only award XP to players when they kill enemies.
So, if this is a problem, then changing to another RPG system (not rewarding the players for kills only) can be a cure for it!
#2 - Far more often done by GMs than players! GMs so focused at telling a story /presenting a world, that the GM forget to incorporate the players in the story / world!
#3 - Again far more often done by GMs who listen(?) for the players to say what the GMs expect the players to say!
#4 - Well, the player who show up unprepared can be frustrating, but sometimes we have to accept them as we then is enough people to actually play...
#4 & #5 - If the players do not prepare/share plans, it can be due to the GM.
I have been spectator to a session, where I intercepted the GM just after the session as he was about to give those in the group who did not plan ahead more XP than those who did!
His argument for distributing the XP, the way he was about to do, was that those not planning did succeed in what they did whereas those planning did fail. I managed to get him to realise that those planning did give him both ideas at how the plan could fail and more time to think up a way making the plan fail, whereas those who was quick to act did not leave him with ideas or time to think up ways they could fail!
When I told him he could see it himself, but had I not intercepted he would not have noticed.
So I say: Unconscious decisions made by GMs do that quick action more often succeed than carefully laid out plans, and thus teach the players that rash action is the way to success!
#6 - Yes, so annoying!
Killing instead of capturing foes sounds more like a GM problem to me in that it sounds more like a problem that would only arise had the GM frequently wanted that option to be considered / taken up. From there surely it's better to say that maybe the GM could do a little more to hint at their personally-preferred options, and if they did and nothing happens regularly, then maybe the more valid point is that players don't experiment / take GM hints / advice
I zoned out on the Not Listening portion, when will I learn?
On the notion of talking to much, if i try to avoid talking or acting to allow my party they usually just kinda dont act either. Do you have any advice on maybe prodding them into action or getting them more involved?
TheFatFondler - I can only suggest talking to them next session about what they want out of the game. Are they hesitant because they don't know what to do? Are they worried about being judged for their ideas or opinions? Are they just shy? It may take a while but some encouragement might be needed to break them out of their shell. Making the campaign about things they might care about so they can relate to NPCs needing their help also keeps them involved and willing to actually do things.
Also, it's just possible that they are just the spectator type. I spent all my childhood, from 4 to 19 only just looking at my father and his friends playing their RPG games, and it's only been 4 years that i've began playing with them. Some people just come to the table for a chance at seeing the GM story unfolding :p.
How would one handle pets? Should they be statted out and used like another PC? Should they be a weapon or ability?
First point might seem a bit dependent on campaign, though. If you're hacking through the jungles of Chult in Tomb of Annihilation, you're really not going to be focusing on capturing a camadan or something.
What do you mean by preparation?
All of these are just life skills in general. Listen to each other, communicate with your team, always come prepared, and dont kill everybody you run into.
For the talking part, I'm really bad at that. Especially since IRL I'm the idea guy of my friends. So it's a though line to tread between talking to much, and talking way to little.
I had a group that was following an orc group which would have lead them to a greater threat. They successfully executed all of them... sigh... so the greater threat was left to grow stronger. They had their hands full when the hoard descended on them.
Funny enough when we played Lost mine of Phandelver (misspelled I am sure) and we got ambushed by Goblin I shouted that they should take one alive.
I took a conscious decision to not talk very must during our first session and mainly listen.
The reason for my choice is:
I want the 6 new players to have fun discovering example oh the monster we fight is a Troll or this trap is construct to escape it you have to move backwards.
It's also a good way for my character to gleam how trustworthy my party memeber are (he/she is a little slow to trust non Elves due having a girl he like kidnapped and only having a dark Cloak with a green scorpion symbol as clue).
I normally spend the day after the session to evaluate if their was anything I could have done better like example RPG my spell cast, which spell would be more useful for the adventure and if this situation happen how will my character react.
Maybe I don't share the plan with others due to planing on betraying them.
If I could add to the idea that players can be to kill focused, I think DM's need to think about this too. If you've set up a situation where the players are fighting groups of bandits, goblins, or anything sentient really, why would they fight to the last man standing. They wouldn't and shouldn't. Once it becomes clear that the players are going to win, enemies should reconsider their options and either flee or surrender.
Groups of enemies that act like brainless canon fodder are going to be treated like brainless canon fodder and be killed. If enemies appear to the players like they have a sense of their own, I have found my players to be more likely to treat them as such as well.
I just wish my players would ask NPCs questions to learn about the world or for tips to accomplish the mission. They struggle so much to figure out what's going.
Hey, how about asking that wise wizard or guard captain or bartender some questions.
The party capturing foes that the GM didn't anticipate would be interrogated can be really stressful for the GM when he/she has to improvise the answer to all these questions constantly.
TheSuperQuail And? A good GM should be able to improvise.
I've been in multiple games where all opposition will fight to the death. Mercy is a trap. Parley is a trap. Avoiding a conflict is a trap.
Yes pleeeeeaaaase shut up from time to time ! I'm a very shy and non-talkative person, so if no one else shuts up I simply cannot speak ! It's kind of the opposite problem, but wouldn't it be much easier to not talk than to actively try to place your voice in a conversation when you're not used to ?
For point number one. There is also the opposite. Capturing everyone, and spending an entire session questioning them just in case the last eight lied to you.
You folks should (unless Im wrong about this) - make a catalog of good live games per character type.
The murder hobo mentality is baked into most RPGs by granting XP for “overcoming” monsters. Most players interpret that to be killing them. Monte Cook's Cypher System (Numenera, The Strange, God’s of the Fall, Predation, Unmasked, and the generic Cypher System rules) does not, it awards XP for discoveries. It's a refreshing change.
Actually, the DMG's and modules have always suggested (at least to my knowledge) that XP be rewarded for "defeat"... Whatever "defeat" constitutes, counts for the XP... so even that my third level, half-elven Fighter Mage has absolutely ZERO chance of killing a Terrasque... a truly clever plan and operation to "defeat" the thing is possible, and can garner rewards.
With the gains in popularity for D&D, there's a certain side-effect, of "well... they'll just let ANYONE play this game, now..." It's true, and actually, they should... don't get me wrong there. BUT if you understand the connotation, there's going to be just mountains and mountains of stock answers and mediocrity that comes with all the popularity. Not everyone even CAN be the next Shakespeare, Tolkien, or Pratchett...
It's easy to get frustrated, but Patience and Tolerance are both virtues... A little coaching and occasional "counter intuitive suggestion" at the table-side, can help... It takes time, but in the longer run, tends to be worth the investment. ;o)
also, the suggestion that XP be awarded for things besides overcoming enemies (for discoveries, social interactions, etc.) has been around for a long time too.
After stepping on a three-sided die one night on my way to sleep, I no longer question the value of glow-in-the-dark dice.
I never heard of three sided dice before... now that I've seen one, I just have to ask... what the actual Frick?!?
Four sided are pure evil, but those three sided... things... hurt my understanding of geometry.
#6 is not being prepared. Have your character sheet ready to go. If we leveled, have that done. Same thing for DMs. Know what is happening this session and don't spend half the time going through notes or otherwise looking things up.
"Broken Telephone" used to be called Chinese Whispers, but I guess that's not a valid name for it anymore. I can understand that, but I'm just mentioning it 'cause I've never heard it called the former before.
In my game I have a big problem with people rolling and then saying "18" to which I reply "What were you rolling for?".
There was once a village full of everyday people, I had the most evil NPC of all time dressed with white robes and seem so innocent and peaceful and she gave a quest to the players to burn this village because the people there were really bad because reasons. The players totally destroyed that village living no survivors, they were rewarded with plenty of money and went to the next quest from the same quest giver. Slaying the minotaur that was blocking the bridge, the minotaur was innocent again and the players didn't know that the quest givers were the biggest organization in the world having more power even of the 3 kings leading the lands of a world that I made.. anyway. Instead of slaying the minotaur the tried to talk to him, one knew the language and with a high roll he actually learned the full story. Basically one of the kings slayed his whole clan and this is why he was blocking the bridge etc etc etc... anyway. The party went and assassinate the king and succeeded and then they were wanted in the whole world and tried to establish a new group of rebels and the story took a HUGE NEW turn.
So to all players, please be like that, try to do new things, the story feels generic and empty if you just follow it.
I generally hate killing npcs unless they would do a lot more harm alive. Sadly, my fellow players always seem to rather just kill them and be done with it. It's so much more interesting to try to talk to one and try to understand it. Sure, if it's insane, maybe take him out, but murder hoboing is so boring.
I feel you on that one
Here's one to think on.
'Turning your nose up' at the GM's adventure.
This covers a wide variety things, but the major thing is the GM's 'basic building blocks' are being foiled if the players disrespect the very existence of your narrative, whether they're ignoring or killing NPC's indiscriminately on a whim or due to boredom, or refusing to investigate anything besides a corpse they can loot.
The adventure can go off the rails, yes, but there is a basic 'ground level' of construction provided for the adventure.
Perhaps the GM didn't bait the adventure correctly and failed to provide enough adventuring 'wiggle room' to support the material he or she prepared.
This may be difficult to recognize, but you have to realize the GM's efforts are to be respected and appreciated by the players, though the fruits of those efforts are on a different level. The players then can interact in a world with rules which make sense.
This isn't just a player issue, either. Baiting the adventure properly is important. The GM may need to move or adjust 'traps' (whether it is roleplay traps, combat traps, riddle traps, puzzle traps, or actual mechanical traps). Moving 'traps' around narratively and chronologically may effectively provide the adventure your players need to play their characters more accurately.
Such being said, the players should help the GM by providing feedback (without egregiously interrupting the game flow), even better if the players are discussing ideas in character. Also, asking the GM questions about the situation and the surroundings helps to give the world form (not just for one player, fortunately), and can even give the GM a proper cognitive boost, as Game Masters are always learning, and an evolving world is a lively world. Such said, a lively world awakens the imagination of your players and drives the adventure forward.
Interestingly enough, this video's points of advice can also be interpreted to help with the building and running of NPC's, denoting an abundance or lack of cohesion with player characters and other NPC's, depending on your NPC's level of cooperation. Even further, you can use NPC's bickering amongst each other and/or witholding information from eachother in a roleplay encounter as a method to educate the players on the depth of your world and the value of cooperation in a TTRPG.
yes it was "Mercy" in my last game, let the paladin live after killing the gunslinger and wizard. and totally not framing him for their murder so that no one suspected infiltration and theft.
Is the hat a mistake?
Omg yes on all these..... I dm kids.... they are all these 🤣🤣🤣
you must mean they DO all these things, MAKE all these mistakes.
i think it is an important distinction, because if you say "ARE" it implies that they can't change/improve.
why not a realm where the players are the monters and the monsters are the civilized races. wouldnt the humans,elves, etc be the monsters if you look at it from the monsters perspective???
About the "not listening/not sharing information" part:
NPC (me as the DM): "A village near the mountains got destroyed in a horrible fire!"
Player: "Got it"
*player rejoins the group*
Player: "There is a dragon near the mountain, destroyed a village!"
I thought about correcting him, but maybe he was RPing, so I didn't say anything. And watched the group prepare for a dragonhunt for one hour.
When they went to the destroyed village, there naturally wasn't a dragon, but a fire demon.
Player: "But you said dragon????"
Me: "No, no I didn't. Not once. I said it got burned down!"
Player: "Obviously by a dragon!"
Me: "Apparently not..."
They managed to win the fight, even though being completly unprepared...but boy will I intervene next time some dumbfuck shares his expectations and not the stuff I really said...
Everyone makes mistakes. Our entire group for a year added proficiency to our damage rolls as well as our attack rolls
In defense of that "slip"... 2e's mechanic (as I recall) was to add +1 to hit, +2 damage for every proficiency "stacked" on a weapon...
SO... mechanics occasionally get tweaked from edition to edition, and not everyone reads as carefully as (maybe) they should... meh.
We (Players and GM's) are human... Showing a measure of patience with each other will help in navigating mountains of drek, even for the very rarest of occasional dramatic gem. ;o)
Best tip I got from this: Do not do heavy construction. It irritates the rest of the players.
Even in real life, people have tendency to hear for what they want rather than listening at all
Well heres one for u players who makes a spectical out of a little thing that isnt important
As the players fully kill their enemies even when both enemies seem to fighting each other here... and per say orcs vs goblins with a allosaurus as a pet??? "Nothing interesting, make sure theres no survivors"
Yeah that wasn't purposely interesting or weird to make them ask questions or such... just outright genocide. That's what I have planned when they outright kill every creature there... one hex in the map is without life.
No heavy construction, What no wonder my party hates me why has no one told me this.
What I shouldn't be doing heavy construction this is madness madness I say
A foe killed is one you never have to deal with again....
So killing them is not a mistake. Its a decision.
I only play RPGs to impress women.
first?
Talking too much : I’ve had first hand experience of that
We have a player who is a gnome with absurdly high charisma who can basically talk his way out of everything. While he isn’t incorrect in his decision making (after all he is the captain) but it feels like his character dictates all the decision for our party and instead of feeling like a player, you feel like an npc. Basically it takes all the tension out of situation because he can basically talk his way out of it and that it feels like the party is playing Simon says rather than dnd
Careful there Guy, you're starting to wander into clickbait territory with that title. Especially with the random caps on MISTAKES that just looks ugly when the rest of the title is properly capitalized. A better title would be 5 Common Role Playing Mistakes if you ask me.
MissingnoTheGreat Well would you look at that.
Actually, what was it originally?
Oh he actually changed it, that's awesome. It was originally just 5 Role Playing MISTAKES you may be making. It wasn't actual clickbait but it was close to it as I've noticed that proper clickbaiters have taken to mostly proper capitalization but one or two words have been caps locked these days. I'm fairly certain what happened there was that Guy saw the trend and decided to copy it without realizing it wasn't the greatest thing to copy.
MissingnoTheGreat Ah. That makes sense
Click bait has nothing to do with caps, it has to do with the title being about something more appealing than the video actually is.
It's also possible that when he wrote it, he felt he should cap this word. When I'm writing on something that bothers me, I tend to cap a lot to emphasize on what irritates me.
Top #6: Play your character! If you play an orc barbarian, an elven mage and a gnomish tinkerer and you always have the same personality and the same APPROACH to problem solving, you are missing soooo much of what means to role play!
Speaking of self-editing... Consider cutting out fits of coughing, burping and neighbors banging on the walls from your videos.