I rarely, but did occasionally, fudge the dice when I thought the players were just having real or extreme bad luck. I tried to give them a fighting chance. Ultimately all you can do is present events, NPCs and situations against backgrounds. The character provide the action and write their own stories.
I feel the DM should present the campaign world as it is, while the players make decisions based on how they would like it to be. This gives the players agency but without any guarantee of success let alone survival.
I started DMing in the early 90's. My approach is that I am a "worldbuilder". I create an initial sandbox, and from there my job is to figure out what butterfly effects the actions of the players apply to the world forward. There may be areas in that initial state that 1st level parties have no chance of conquering. That's OKAY. The players can research/scout such areas to discern their chances. Should a party get TPK'd, that becomes part of the world. The next party that attempts that area, may find the spoils of the defeated party. Timekeeping is key. Some options are time sensitive. Nemeses are created through party actions. Let's face it... if an established villain is already targeting a 1st level party...they're doomed. Rather, their own actions turn otherwise mundane NPCs into some of the best villains.
My campaign's first mini-boss was a goblin boss that they captured, turned over to the local authorities, and promptly forgot. Can't wait for the party to find him again at about level 12 as the head of the crime syndicate of the capital city of the realm. Suitably scarred from a medieval 'interrogation', surrounded by minions, and thirsty for revenge...
I love those kinds of call backs myself. So much fun and it flows logically from the PLAYER'S actions. THEY influenced the direction of the setting... for good or ill... what they do matters!
@@danielrowan4716 That would be the kind thing to do, but I just really relish the thought of blindsiding them. Even the villainous monologue of "You don't even remember me?! Three years in Hell and a missing eye! I remember you! Well you won't forget me ever again!!"
I usually do a Zelda approach, I try to make a cool place for the players to explore, part of what makes a place great is its lore but I don't do much more story than this. Then I set a complication and I let the players interact with the world as they see fit. Because of that my adventures aren't filled with great dialogue, story lines and things like that, but gameplay-wise I feel they are fun to play. Also I'm very bad at making up stories, so I let things play out of the interactions of my players, and I just play along taking into account my NPCs' motivations and the world's internal logic. If it's a supernatural world, something supernatural will happen, etc.
I take a similar approach. I’ve created a campaign map with a few major cities, a dozen or so points of interest and smaller population centers; threw in some plot hooks and some interesting NPCs then let them make decisions from there.
I 100% agree on not fudging dice rolls. I'd like to hear your opinion on a more subtle way of guiding the game such as not playing the monster's tactics to 100% lethality all the time.
Absolutely. Or you can lower hit points, the monster's lethality. There are TONS of ways to modify an encounter without resorting to dice fudging. I think DMs just to easily jump to this as they don't have the tools to deal with it any other way.
Almost had a TPK at my BFRPG table last week. Creatures rolled awesome, players rolled terribly. I DID reference the downed character’s rod of magic missiles lying by the character. The player decided to pick it up and fire both missiles at a single creature..and rolled max damage, which was exactly what they needed to put the creature down. From there I triggered a morale check and every single creature FAILED. They had a morale of 9 so I couldn’t believe it! The creatures escaped, and the party withdrew and are RELIEVED, but they still have to go back and deal with them again and it has them freaked out. Had I fudged dice they’d never have had that moment.
Sometimes its a nail biter for sure! Nothing says you can't offer advice or remind them of an item in their inventory that might prove useful or what have you. You are not a 'disinterested' party. There are MANY alternatives to dice fudging, and I think a lot of times DMs are quick to jump to fudging... as it keeps them in their comfort zone... but that's part of the THRILL for me as the DM... like when you're watching an exciting action movie and you don't know if the hero is going to make it!
Absolutely! That includes the DM. I think if the DM is having blast, so too the players. When the DM is 'going along the journey' discovering things WITH them, it leads to some very interesting and exciting scenarios that just don't happen with a 'preplanned' narrative.
@@captcorajus Preplanned narratives should only ever be guidelines. All the players and that includes the game master should always be having fun so again, I agree.
Many--if not most--will say that 'The Empire Strikes Back' is the best of the Star Wars movies. It's certainly my favorite. It ends on a bummer but also with hope. All sorts of possibilities are open and the ending of the saga pays off because the stakes felt so much higher. It's a good thing they never produced any movies after 'Return of the Jedi' such films had they been produced would be seen as derivative money-grabs at best.
On the point of fudging dice rolls, I think one of the best things I've heard is that, if it's a situation you want your players to win at, don't have them roll at all! This might work better in less dice-intensive and more narrative-focused games, but I think it's a good one to carry even in D&D or Pathfinder or what-have-you, or go with less binary "win/fail" and more "you still succeed, but here's a problem that arose during." Not quite applicable with straight combat scenarios, however. :D Good vid as always, Captain.
100% agree with the rule that story is written after the game. I take it very literally. After each game I take the role of an in-game scholar and write down everything that happened, chronicling the deeds of the party for the study of future generations. I take a little bit of dramatic license, but if a player did something totally unexpected, or rolled a 1 at a pivotal moment, then that massively affects the story in a way I couldn't have foreseen. Writing this story before the session would be more or less impossible, since I don't know how a story will end if I don't know what choices the characters will make.
Captain, great topic. I prefer the open / sandbox format but also like to help establish boundaries and parameters by feeding the party information and plot hooks. This helps direct play and give them agency. Outline but don’t railroad. On the hiding of die rolls, I’m for hiding most except for initiative and critical rolls such as an enemy’s save that could mean victory or death. I think by keeping most of the rolls hidden it helps create tension and mystery, but by having truly important rolls in the open, it builds trust with the group.
I see the art of the soft and subtle railroad as the ultimate DM skill. When the story the DM creates flows like water around the actions of the players. The story is never static and is always dynamic. Where will the story go? Who knows, but the story plot devices created by the DM follow the players no matter where they go or what they do. The players are not in control of the world and what happens there. The world is a living thing they are instead of participating in. Events in the world are largely beyond their control at the outset. How they react after events are set in motion makes for how the story progresses. The DM must not be attached to the idea of predetermined outcomes and, unlike an author of books, has no idea what the ending will be. If the DM perfects the art of the soft and subtle railroad the players have no idea it's even happening
I agree with you completely. The story emerges from play and is not the GM/DM's. It is in the hands of the players to do as the well and become what they will. The feast is laid before the players by the master chef. But it is up to them what they eat and what the order for their next meal. No offense to the Matt Mercers of the world, but I believe great GM's become background and not the stars of the show.
Mercer crafts his narrative based on player input... and make no mistake, those players go in directions he was NOT planning.... and he rolls with it. Improvisation is a major DM skill... and as a skill, its something that you get better at the more you do it. Another thing I completely neglected to mention was the accumulation of DM's assets.. maps, NPCs, miniatures, and your notes that allow you to have things 'at the ready' to make it seem like 'you planned it'. 🤣
That's not 'fudging' that's ignoring. :P Ran 5E for three campaigns over 8 years, and never fudged a combat die roll. Also, 5E monsters as written SUCK. lol.. I always modified them. Usually adding action options... otherwise they're just complete fodder for the PCs. Giving even a mundane monster a bonus action, reaction or both brings them more in line with their CR, and gets the players attention.
I agree with you on this. Stories emerge from the game, and dice are part of the game. I don't fake dice rolls, and I wouldn't want to play with a GM that does.
Making NPC's with backstories, customizing enemies that fits the environment, giving the characters reasons to adventures, populating the world with culture and traditions... all of this is storytelling from the DM. If you're just randomly rolling dice to randomly generate monsters and NPC's in random areas with random backstories, you're easily replaceable with a website.
What I think works really well is showing a few things to players and thinking about possible consequences of things they've ignored or couldn't deal with in time. And that's how I like impacting the story. Anything more I find boring
For the sandbox approach, without fudging dice rolls, it means that the GM must learn to improvise. I think improvisation is not focused on enough as a prerequisite to running a game, and so therefore railroading happens. In one module I was running, I was so concerned about running the module as written that I lost my confidence to improvise when the players went off script. I simply froze up, not knowing how to react. Fudging dice rolls is a form of improvisation, but like you have said it is the wrong improvisational technique to use. As long as the players are ok with PC death, and as long as they can be reasonable about what they expect from the GM's level of improvisational skills, a game can work. The GM goes with the flow of what the players are chosing to do, and the players are less inclined to ignore plot hooks. It goes both ways.
Dang, hope you are able to recreate your script for The Savage Frontier, I remember buying that supplement when it came out and I used it a LOT for Forgotten Realms campaigns I ran in late high school and when I was in the Marines.
One comment on die fudging. There is one situation where I think it is warranted. When a PC gets insta-killed with no warning and through no fault of his own as a result of pathologically unlucky die rolls. Like a trap that had no warning rolling max damage in the first room of a dungeon. Or a monster making a surprise attack, getting a crit and rolling max damage. Bam, you're dead. In these situations I think it's fair to fudge the dice and lower the damage. Why? One, because this kind of thing isn't fun for anyone and isn't likely to generate any cool stories or memories. Two, because the fact that this situation exists probably means that the DM screwed up, whether by not providing any hints about the trap or by creating an avoidable situation where the monster could ambush PCs without recourse. That said, if the existence of the trap was telegraphed or the surprise attack came because the PCs were loud and took no precautions, let it happen.
I think that's reasonable. I also think that as DMs become more and more experienced this happens less and less. Also, players learn to pick up on when their DM is trying to warn them of impending danger. I know my group knows my style and my 'DM look' and things like 'are you sure you want to do that?" are red flags of caution. However, when they DO get caught off guard, without fail their are like, "Oh man, he totally warned us of that and we just ignored it... " and they are fine with the outcome. This sort of equilibrium is different for every group to be sure. In my game I also have 'player chips'. The get a poker chip at the beginning of the game session and its worth one 'redo' on a die roll. Definitely helps.
I decided to briefly skim your other people's channels list, Captcorajus. After your friendly argument against fudging the die rolls, nice to see you're still on good terms with Skorkowsky. Ha ha ha! But I was pleasantly surprised you had DM It All up there. They take so long between videos, and I thought just I knew they existed. Ha ha ha again!
I enjoy taking PC assumptions and building from there. They THINK there’s a big bad, it’s really just their assumptions that have been reinforced by their actions over the sessions until it’s where they end up. Schrödinger’s big bad, if you will. And, of course, one shots are a different animal.
I love subverting player character's expectations. So much fun! Like for example, they were after this crazy Owl Bear that was rampaging the area, and had come across a magical horn, that had affixed itself to the monster. They tracked it down, had several exciting encounters, but when they got to the cave, the owl bear was already dead. Someone had gotten to the creature first! (This was because they took a 'side trek' to do something else before gong after the owl bear.
@@captcorajus in my case the parties has assumed something was important so then spend a ton of time trying to figure it out. So…ok, it’s important now.
I commend your attempt to grapple with this nuanced topic. I think the dice topic and story topic probably could have been two separate videos. On the topic of story and the GM, I think you missed the mark a bit. Just because the GM has a sense of factions and how things will likely play out between those factions doesn't necessarily mean that the GM is railroading. Also, in the examples you gave around the snake cult, those were all scripted arcs. I think ultimately what you're trying to say is that it's important that players choose the arc they're engaging with, but they're still going to have to engage with some sort of arc that the GM has a plan for.
Yep! Those look like "plot threads" or "story arcs" to me. I've found that some players like a "true" sandbox, whereas others like choosing arcs, whether related to their character's backgrounds or by interacting with the world around them.
Thanks... I did my best... lol... Arc or no arc, its what the group likes. The point is, its the PLAYERS that get to choose.. and the DM is mailable enough to roll with it. That the DM is COMFORTABLE enough to be able to relinquish control of the campaign's direction. That's all. :)
ya gotta let the dice fall where they fall...had a black dragon kill a party member "who was a dwarf" got him resurrected, but we didnt have the money to afford the "platinum resurrection package" so was subject to a little randomness in the type of race he came back as...dude ended up coming back as an ELF! we STILL talk about that.
Thanks, this was an interesting video. I’ve been playing since 1980 so your references to OSR modules is much appreciated. I do fudge dice roles when I want to end an encounter that has become tedious or do resolve an encounter that may lead to interesting possibilities - I hope that doesn't make me a Sith Lord?
Lol... I don't know.. once you start down the dark path.. ha ha.. but know what you mean... I've been there with a tedious encounter myself, but rather than fudge a roll... as I'm rolling all my combat dice out in the open... i just lower the hit points so the next hit ends it or something along those lines.
One thing a DM controls completely is miscellaneous modifiers. Invent stuff that puts opponents at a disadvantage. Invent stuff that puts the characters at an advantage. Just make it believable. Rolling secret dice that don't mean anything throughout is a great way to give yourself room to add something latter. Weather conditions shift. Cave in. Barrel in the corner suddenly has flammable contents. Stuff that later looks like it was planned and there were random chances for those issues to manifest themselves. We create random tables for all sorts of things. Why not miscellaneous shifts like those above? Roll randomly and occasionally have one of those things actually happen. Suddenly need to shift the tide of battle, the eagles arrive! Which eagles? Make it up, possibly after the battle is over. If you areconsidering fudging dice, then perhaps you should consider rolling more instead and only use those extra roles when they're really needed.
@@captcorajus That,s great advice. I do buff monsters and change their abilities, especially in published adventures. I warn players to expect this, and I often defer to the ‘ rule of cool.’
@@0ptikGhost thanks for the advice, I understand it is risky business messing with dice rolls, but, for me, it is done sparingly and never during a boss fight or other major encounter.
All of this is true if you preface the whole video with: "If you have self-driven and motivated players, then maybe a pure sandbox is a more rewarding experience" Also, I think that Rail Road vs Sandbox is a false dichotomy, You are talking about Linear Adventures vs Sandbox, a linear adventure is not the same as a Railroad IMO: Pure Sandbox: There is no premade storyline, there is a couple of hooks and the players have to step in and make the worlds theirs, you have to have the right type of players to do that. Linear Adventure: There is a predefined plot and is expected that the players follow it and not wander around to much. Railroad: The players have to solve the conflicts in the way that the GM wants. This can be true both in a Pure Sandbox and in a linear adventure. In the end, is all about expectations, a sandbox demands a lot from players, in my experience most players enjoy more a linear adventure than a pure sandbox. My favorite is a "limited sandbox" a place with different and not necessarily related things to do and an overarching main plot. Is the Main Quest + Side Quests formula, the players can engage with the "optional" content as they like while going through the main story. The Lost Mines of Phandelver is an example of this.
I did preface the video with "Don't let me tell you what fun is." I think if you give players, even 'unmotivated ones' defined choices you can manage to get things going. :)
Maybe I miss understood the core message of this video, but what i got from it is that a pure sandbox is a more rewarding type of game. That is maybe true, but only if you have the right type of players, the type of players that are self-motivated and that play in a way that a "main story" emerge naturally in the sandbox, are the minority. If you don't have the right group and create a pure sandbox and throw them in there, the sessions will be boring AF.
In our Pathfinder campaigns, we use a luck system that can prevent bad luck and create dramatic moments! Luck Values: (-7) - 24 -Expenditure 1d4 Luck (Must have at least 1 positive Luck Point): You may use Luck to affect one event brought about by an action you take or one that directly affects you. (Examples: Hjalmar using Luck to make Admiral Blood fail a save against a spell HE cast. Timbo using Luck to disarm Admiral Blood. Slayn using luck to make a save vs Zone of Truth which he was affected by. Combat Rewind a la Rick vs. Pixies) -Expenditure (1d4) x2 Luck (Must have at least 1 positive Luck Point): You may use luck to affect one event brought about by someone else's action which has no direct impact on you. (Examples: Bob using luck to rewind Slayn's fireball thus saving 3/4s of the party, but having no effect on him because of evasion. Using luck to make the Shin ship's guns misfire. They were targeting the ship not one individual.) -Every time you advance a level, roll luck as per the table below. ADD this to your previous total up to the maximum defined below. Hopefully this will prevent Luck dump battles right before you advance. Player Luck Player Level Luck Roll Max Luck 1 1d4 4 2-3 1d6 10 4-7 2d4 16 8-15 3d6 20 16-20 4d6 24
With any RPG game, story structure become scaffolding, in which the players construct the story architecture. The DM is not the story teller. A DM is a story guest of the players.
There are OTHER tools a DM can use to sway combat in a pinch other than dice fudging. You can lower a creature's hit points on the fly. You can lower its AC. You can say it DOESN'T have this one magic item or potion you gave it... I really HATE dice fudging and I think most PLAYERS do to.
I could be wrong, but I read the comment as talking about non-combat encounters where dice aren’t involved. The story really is the characters’ (and players), the dice are conflict resolution.
My opinion anytime you alter the game mechanics after it starts is fudging. We are kidding ourselves if we think changing HP or AC mid-fight is not fudging/cheating. So embrace it if you are going down that path, all of this is for fun, so have at it!
Sorry, the e-dog ate your script. The few times that has happened to me, it was a blessing. What I wrote the second time was much better. I hope it works out for you too. 😊
There's no way you can be prepared with all the available stat blacks, maps and just having a coherent game of you let everything go with the flow. There need to be a framework
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. Its just a matter of prep over time. I keep a list of potential NPC names. I have a very full index card box of NPCs, monsters, and what have you and ... my DM's notebook to jot down what I come up with on the fly. That's all you need... and the ability to improvise. Improvisation is a skill, and just like any skill, the more you use it, the better you get at it. Keep a few 'blank' dungeon or cave maps available. A list of tricks and traps... and you'd be surprised at what you can come up with in a pinch. The players don't know what you've got going on there behind the screen. Just make it up! That's the FUN of being a DM IMHO.
@captcorajus personally I wouldn't feel satisfied throwing together a dungeon on the fly in the middle of a game. I would rather have it mostly prepared and not use it, then have to put it together right there and then. And same thing with with quests, and story archs. For me, if u have everything prepared, It's easier for me to change course when the PCs do something I wasn't expecting cause I already kno what the bad guy wants, needs, etc. I don't think I would like the feeling of making it all up on the fly
@@Jon71992i agree with you. In my experience as a DM players enjoyed actually having a unified goal they want to achieve. You could take this guy's advice and sit their and listen to the players agrue about who gets to decide what the party is going to do next for half an hour. Or the players could sit there waiting for their open sand box ref. randomly roll up NPC s and dungeon encounters after every interaction. There is such a thing a game flow. The adventure runs seemlessly and the goal/villains and encounters make sense and the players actually accomplish and complete the scenario. I am not saying he is completely wrong here as I want the players to feel free to choose how they develop in the world individually. Where they want to set a home or keep and what friends (NPC's) they decide to make etc. But the flip side is the DM creates villains and adventures. I have a player who admittedly wants to be friend a dragon. I will definitely incorporate that into "our" campaign. But I will balance that with a villian also having a dragon. Currently too low a level to have such a powerful friend. He mentions that the DM must enjoy the game also but I can't see how allowing the players to dictate the game while just rolling randomized monster encounters would be enjoyable? For the DM or the players. What if I wanted to take the party on a pre-made module? Is this just not allowed because "I am an open sand box referee"? Answer: No, of course I can because "I am a Dungeon master" not "a random encounters table". So, in my experience players and DMs can have an enjoyable evening going on a preplanned adventure that flows seemlessly, makes sense and accomplishes a goal. But hey, the great thing about D&D and roll playing is you can do it how ever you want. But while I sit here listening to this content creator come across condescending and a bit arrogant about how his philosophical approach (improvisation) is the best. I can't help but feel sorry that he and his group might be missing out on other elements.
@trevorclapham5571 Hey, thanks for the reply! And I agree with s out of what you said. Like I said in one of the comments above, it's a lot easier to adjust the adventure when the players make a wild left turn when you kno what the adventure is/goals, wants etc of the npc/bad guys. And half the fun for me is preparing the dungeons and maps and stuff a week before. As for the random encounter topic. I actually hate them. I feel like a lot of the time they just waist time I have stuff my players moving the game forward. I completely agree there e could be games where the idea of random tables for monsters wandering around the woods and stuff could work, but I would say 95% of my "random" encounters were encounters I wanted the players to have
@@Jon71992 I agree with you. Part of the fun of being a DM is getting to place interesting monsters and encounters for the players. Having them solve or winning the encounter and watching them enjoy it is very satisfying. Waiting for the players to tell me what to do and generating an encounter off a sheet sounds boring and not very satisfying. Do you really need a DM at that point? Creating interactive NPC (friendly or hostile) is so much fun. Integrating them into the world and having the players deal with them is fun. But waiting for the players to tell me what town they want to go to while I have nothing emersive made but referring to a list of random names and states and rolling what to pick is not enjoyable. It sounds boring. People need to remember that most of the RPGs they watch on podcasts are failed actors who are now being used to promote products. And people start listening to them like they are some sort of experts. lol I have been playing for over 40 years. Yes I am old and still play a hybrid version of first and second AD&D. I have played other versions but I enjoy 1st and 2nd most. The version doesn’t matter and what is most important is a group of people enjoying they free time together. So play what your group likes best. Though I cringe listening to modern D&D players saying I am making a dwarf wizard or half orc paladin. Just seems wrong to this old guy. But what I believe to be cringe is irrelevant to what others want to do to have fun. Just like this content creator. Why is he telling people who don’t adopt his philosophy towards DM’n as railroading? I have never seen or heard of this channel before. Just a random pop up that seemed interesting to listen to. I wonder if he has any live sessions on his channel I could watch. I would be curious to see how it goes. Edit: I went through his videos and unfortunately I didn’t see an example of his philosophical approach to DMing there. Bummer. Not surprised though. His channel seems interesting, but this video is a bit off putting as his comments in this section seems fairly arrogant. Telling people they are speaking malarkey and conflating his opinion with absolutes like he is the arbiter of truth and get this reality. Funny stuff.
I still like my concept of a rail network. It's not a one line railroad with no stops. It's not a road-trip thru "Random Table Land" either. I enjoy designing adventures more than DMing them. At this point in my D&D life, you could call me more of an designer than a DM.
I enjoy exploring and discovering the world with my players. Its very hard for me to get 'burned out' when its going good. When that synergy is there, its so immersive.
While this all sounds great, I'd like to know where you find players that enjoy taking initiative in where the campaign goes. In 26 years of running games, I've come across about 2 players that enjoy this. Everyone else wants to be shown where the adventure is, and just stick to it. It all sounds great, but unless your players are Old School as all get out, it doesn't work.
Sorry, but that's just not true. I've run things this way for MANY groups of players over the years, and it always works for me. I had a group of new school, 5E players... worked. Old school players.. Worked. Old and newschool players combined 5E.. worked. I think its all how you introduce it. How you begin your campaign. Like the message board idea. Try that! I'm not saying that YOU don't have a planned adventure.. I'm saying that you offer a variety of choice.. that the world is a busy place... there's more than just 'one thing' to do. There's some missing children in the nearby village, a wizard needs an escort to an old tower, the local baron is having trouble with brigands on the road. What do you want to do? Pit it to them THAT WAY... THEY choose. You STILL had set adventures, but the players decided what they wanted to do. This sort of 'choice' engages the players in the setting.
@@captcorajus Sorry but it is true. I'm absolutely going to keep trying, maybe I will find players that want more that quest givers. But it has actually been true in my experience, unfortunately.
If players want to be adventurers then you are the Dungeon Master. If players want to be heroes then they need a storyteller. The former doesn't require Big Bads or vast, overarching narratives. The players are the central force, and the story is their story. The latter is about the conflict. The villain is the mover and shaker while the players are reacting to the circumstances other forces have set before them. So basically, Keep on the Borderlands vs. Descent into Avernus.
Sort of... but also ... pretty wrong. The point is, which you missed if you didn't completely watch the video? I can craft as deep a narrative, and as in depth a role playing experience without crafting everything beforehand as in the 'Avernus' storyline. However, before the campaign begins, I have no idea that 'going to Avernus' will be a thing... who the 'big bad' is going to be, or even if there is going to be one. Those things happen organically as part of the ongoing narrative, and is dictated by the player's choice.. to do something... or NOT do something, both things are impactful choices. Thus, no 'story teller' needed. The 'STORY' is what you have to tell AFTER the campaign is over. 😀
@@captcorajus That's because you're sitting down to the table with a blank slate (relatively speaking). All options are on the table...pun not intended. However, many player groups do NOT sit down that way. They arrive expecting to be the Fellowship of the Ring and the DM to have Sauron's machinations planned out. That ominous, hard to resist wizard tower off to the side? Not optional. Some players just outright EXPECT Saruman to be planned out and try to bring the players to him by any means necessary. They may bridle at "railroading" consciously, but they still want to see all the story bits unconsciously.
@@chaosgyro Here's the thing. The players DON'T KNOW THAT I DON"T HAVE A PLAN. lol From their perspective, it SEEMS like it flows from a plan where actually it didn't. If you've never DM'd in this style, or played with someone who DM'd this way and was good at it, this might be a very hard concept to understand. Trust me, if they want to be 'The Fellowship' then that's how it will go.. remember this is about PLAYER CHOICE after all.
Seth Skorkowsky had a great opinion on dice fudging that I've kept to heart ever since. Dice fudging should never be for the GM's own desire whether for or against the player's success in the game, ans should be reserved to correct if they feel that the encounter was too overwhelming (to an unfair degree) and to be in service of the player's enjoyment. Death and fear of death should always be present and never cheated if happens, but having someone in a last stand with a dark knight to lose initiative and die immediately to a critical hit instead of getting a chance to make that last stand (and most likely die all the same) has the same result, but thw GM has enabled the players to have a great story thanks to him fudging one roll during the fight. Fudging is something that should be exceptionally rare but used when in service of correcting mistakes or when a great story opportunity pressnts itself. Isnt that the reason we have a screen to begin with?
I say to the 'dark knight' example.. so what? That's the way it goes. If he wants to claim that makes a 'great story' that's his choice, but I say its a bunch of malarkey. I've not fudged dice in 20 years and there's no one at my table going to say they aren't having a great time. I agree with Seth on a lot of things, but not this. IMHO, fudging is a crutch that DM's use to keep the game in THEIR comfort zone. Who's to say that the character's death like that won't make a great story? First.. the OTHER players KNOW its on! This guy means business.. and two if you're not willing to accept the results of the dice they why are you even rolling? and three, who's to say that the NEXT character that player rolled up.. wouldn't have ADDED something to the campaign... and finally, if they DIDN'T defeat the Dark Knight during that encounter.. when next the DID encounter him and defeat him, it would feel all the sweeter. Dems the breaks. The game is STILL fun when the unexpected happens like that.. and in fact, I'll claim that its the unexpected that keeps the game interesting. Its a slippery slope. Once you start down the dark path....
I find player character attachment is the biggest motivation for dice fudging as in the dark knight example. I find everyone forgets characters can be ressurected. Is it hard? Yes. Expensive? Also yes. Worthwhile? Maybe. Gone are the days of rolling up 1st level characters to replace your fallen 6th level character. Or are they? Retreat. Mourn the character. Give it an appropriate burial. Restock. Gain some more power. Chase down the original foe. Seek revenge. Except the original foe also had some time to rebuild. Now they've gained a new minion. The reanimated corpse of your fallen friend!
I agree with most of what you say about building a setting and letting it evolve based on what the players do. But I've got to disagree on the subject of "job boards". To me this is an incredibly cheesy and anachronistic device for a fantasy RPG. Story hooks shouldn't be written out, like quests in video games. They should arise out of interactions with the world and it's inhabitants. IMO anyway.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.....unless you pay attention to what the Jedi do. There are times for sandbox and there are times for plot. There are times for dice fudging and there are times for no dice fudging. There is a certain zen moment when the DM realizes that there is no one true path of control vs randomness. That there is a time for every approach.
As I said, don't let me tell you what fun is. However, I don't think 'every approach' is worthwhile. Adopt an approach that suits your style. But if you 'sometimes fudge the dice' then.. you fudge the dice. The question then becomes what are you fudging in favor of? The players? The 'story'? or your own comfort zone? I just don't do it. :)
@@captcorajus Is "If you sometimes fudge the dice, then you fudge the dice" like if you sometimes wear shoes, then you wear shoes? I sometimes eat, so I eat? I roll in front, not behind a screen. 99 percent of the time I start fudging dice is when the combat has gone from being fun to a tedious slog. The players have become disengaged to the point where they are not even looking at my dice. It is the exact opposite of the tooth and nail combat where the players are looking at my every dice roll. So when the slog happens and the players eyes are glazing over, it is easy for me to call the result instead of going with the dice. I never fudge to keep characters alive. I fudge to alleviate boredom.
In my opinion, plot is the players responsibility. The DM is responsible for setting. Players dictate plot through character action and the DM develops it just enough so the players can continue to drive the plot. The DM uses the setting via NPC action to develop that tiny bit of plot the players hinted at. Of course, dice are also a great way to develop all things. The best DMs do not control plot. They control randomnes. They use the setting to materialize that randomness. If, as DM, you are controlling plot, then you have already decided on and developed a particular story. The players are just responsible for their lines and actions of minor consequence. That deprives the players from too much in my book.
@@captcorajus As a DM you have a million options, if you don't want the possibility of a TPK then include in your world something like a Gandalf style figure who has the possibility to bring aid at a critical time, but when it comes to dice fudging sooner or later such fudging will destroy the player's belief in the world you have created. Take this basic scenario, a badly wounded Ogre swings his club at Rodric the Fighter who has 17hp left.......1) The DM rolls behind the screen, the player has been in several similar situations before and await his response, the DM says "the Ogre's club comes thudding into your shoulder with tremendous force.....you take 15 damage!" the player records the damage and the party easily despatches the Ogre before its next action, it was supposed to be exciting because the character 'nearly' died but in the end it was the common outcome of this world.......2) The DM rolls in the open, even though the party is making short work of the Ogre every player is attentively watching the rolls/action play out, they know from previous rounds that this Ogre's club does 3D6 damage, a 19 and a hit, there is an audible "oooooh" from some of the players, 3D6 now tumble across the table for the damage roll, Rodric's fate is in the hand of the Gods, whether the damage is 5 or 8 or 15 the nearness to death will feel the same, and if the roll is enough to kill Rodric (17 or 18) then the story will be a well remembered tale!
This is a more proper take. Modern takes are obsessed with RPG's being "storytelling games" where they develop some sense of entitlement that it's no longer an actual Game (aka threatening challenge) and everything must tell some Grand meta-Narrative. That almost becomes a railroad in itself but in favor of the players to be "main characters" with privileged "actor" status in the world. You get to act. But so does everything else. Players decisions don't control everything and never should. Reality exists with _TENSIONS_. Flat ontology.
This is fine if you're running a module. However if you run a quality narrative and leave a lot of open threads then the ending is not preconceived. Your ability to worldbuild and create is what is holding you back, not that you need to "storytell" it's that you are not that creative and want to run a safe module with many options.
That is nice as long as you play on a table with pen & paper. But as soon as you move to PC and to digital platforms, tou simply cannot have 100% sandbox, you must have things already prepared for the players, you can't do them on the fly...
I use Fantasy Grounds all the time.. and certainly, you DO need to have player maps handy to give to them if they go in that direction... but I sandbox on VTT same as at the table just fine. In fact, I find it EASIER a lot of times as I can whip up an encounter quite quickly since everything is searchable. I have a variety of 'Generic' combat maps.. maps on the road, maps in a wilderness.. etc. The more you play on a VTT, the larger your accumulation of assets becomes and the more you have available for 'on the fly' elements.
All my games are on Fantasy Grounds and it doesn't stop me from maintaining a sandbox approach. I do have a general idea between games of how things are going based on what the players tell me though.
Only if you allow the digital tools to rule your play. I remember a time when I wanted my video games to play more like TTRPGs. Now we've forgotten how to play without digital tools and are transforming our TTRPGs into semi-manual video games. I fully believe players should create their oen maps, even when distributed online. The digital tools should make it easier for the players to do the thing they would have done on the table. It makes no sense for characters and/or players to have semi-perfect knowledge for a dark network of underground passages because they laid eyes on them once briefly. Exploring the "room", including mapping, should take time and is a loud affair. If they don't map, then there should be a chance of getting lost. If players remember the way, reward them by not letting the characters get lost. If players cannot remember the way and didn't take the time ti make a mao, then they will naturally get lost, unless they get lucky...
I gave this video a thumbs down, despite the fact that I agree with you on most of what you say (200% on dice fudging!). I want to be up front that I deeply respect your opinion and your channel, but I need to respectfully disagree with you here. I dislike the video because I think your initial premise is deeply flawed. I think your definition of Storyteller is very specific, and not at all a universally understood meaning of the title. (Edit: I buried the lede here, so I want to say plainly, my gripe is one of semantics. I think the real problem is DMs who think they're there to "author" a story, rather than help to tell one). I find the hair-splitting difference you make ("Story Enabler" vs. "Storyteller") to be grossly pedantic (Edit: and I know, I just got done making a semantic distinction between "Teller" and "Author" - but I think there's a deep divide between telling a story and authoring one. Not so much between telling a story and enabling others to tell it... the latter is just telling a story cooperatively - see below for why that distinction bothers me). As a DM, I am VERY MUCH A STORYTELLER. And I think all good DMs are, whether they recognize it or not. That doesn't mean I plot out a strict narrative that the players can't deviate from, no matter the choices their characters make. That's not the kind of storytelling you do in a TTRPG. Far from it: the players portray characters in the story, and as the DM, I don't have narrative control over the choices those characters make. I do have control over how the world responds. What I do is create narrative moments. Story beats. Events that will take place, provided the players don't somehow change the narrative in ways that preclude or alter these events. Being flexible as a DM is part of the art of TTRPG storytelling. You're not telling the players a story - you're the narrator of the story they're crafting out of the materials you give them. Killing your darlings (i.e., letting some pre-planned moments fall to the wayside in favor of the story the players are telling) is key. My favorite example of this sort of adventure planning is Horror on the Hill. I was amazed at how much STORY is in that old module, despite it being at first glance a typical published adventure of the day (1980's). Many of the monsters are given deep characterization - whether the family of Ogres in the caverns, or the Neanderthals that they are opposed to. The inhabitants of the cottage on the hill. The mad berserkers in the maze, or the true villain at the module's end. What in many cases would have been a simple set of stat-blocks turns into little vignettes that require storytelling skills to portray. These NPCs have motivations that can provide a number of different responses to what the PCs do, and you very much are telling the story through those NPCs eyes. It's a give and take. You tell part of the story, the players tell their own character's part. All that said, I chafe at many of the same things you do: DMs who feel as though the game is their story to craft, who railroad too strictly or limit player choice. But I find the notion that "Storyteller" conjures such imagery rather myopic. In some cases, I've seen people react rather childishly to the title of Storyteller, even in games where its use was meant to shift the focus away from game mechanics and towards collaborative storytelling. That ugly sentiment is rooted in a rather snide attitude I've seen crop up in the last decade or so - people who insist that TTRPGs are all "collaborative storytelling" - and that the GM is "just another player" (the implication being that Players should have as much - if not more - narrative control than the GM). I'm not saying this is your point of view - I don't get that impression. But that attitude is where I see the most frequent pushback against "Storyteller" as a GM title. Now, I also grew up playing other games as well, like Vampire: The Masquerade, where the GM is actually called the Storyteller (ST). So my understanding of what "Storyteller" means is not what you're railing against. That said, I have to die on this hill. A DM is a Storyteller, just as they're a Referee. And again, I do want to add, I couldn't agree more with what you say about dice fudging. That's one of those ugly habits that DMs adopt when they see their role as the AUTHOR of the story, rather than the TELLER.
My problem with the term story TELLER is that a Teller TELLS... they don't collaborate. I think its a very poor term to begin with. I prefer story enabler, and I'm totally willing to die on that hill all day long. The 'Story' is what you have left AFTER the game is over. Before that the very best you have is a vague outline of potential plots and directions. Then the players are involved, you play it out, and afterwards .. THEN you have a story to "tell". Seems pretty upfront and reasonable. Saying I'm pedantic here, is a poor criticism. Sorry.
@@captcorajus I wholeheartedly disagree with you here. I get what you're driving at: a "story" as a tale that's recounted. But you can absolutely tell a story at the same time you author it. Anyone who's had to makr up a bed time story for their kids know this. And the story here doesn't pop into existence once you get to "Happily Ever After." It arises in the telling. In general, good storytellers draw the audience in as active participants. It isn't just the teller speaking to passive listeners. TTRPGs draw the players in further, to the point where they aren't just active listeners, but co-authors of the story in progress. The GM still does all of the same things a Storyteller does; they set the scene, narrate events, portray characters in the world, build and release tension through descriptions and pacing, create emotional stakes and set-ups and pay-offs. Saying that the word "Teller" somehow implies you're dictating events without any input from others ignores the rich traditions and interactive nature of storytelling. Fixating on that word ("tell") as if it can only mean "Command" or "Dictate" or "Recount" misses that ultimate goal of storytelling: to transport others to a different time and place. To invest them in the events. To describe whay happens and make them wonder what will happen next. Splitting that hair is like saying "Game Master" isn't appropriate because it implies the GM is in complete control of the game - when we all know that's not the connotation. So I'd feel the same way if someone was arguing we should call them "Game Facilitators" - it ignores the actual traditions of Game Mastery in favor for a thin definition that plays into the word's sterotypes of bad-GM fuckery. For what it's worth, I do think terminology matters, and the words we use reinforce our biases. But I also think there's a point where it starts to feel less like constructive discussion and more like quibbling over semantics and gazing too closely at our own navels. (Not saying you're doing this - I don't think you are. But a lot of people who reject the term Storyteller are really reacting to a chip on their shoulder from a bad, railroady DM experience). In any case, again, I don't think Stories are necessarily the final product of a TTRPG adventure/campaign, but the connective tissue that builds on the framework of the DM's preparation. (Edit) - I'm on mobile, so please forgive any typos. Also I want to reiterate, you're one of my favorite D&D-related channels, and I don't mean this to be combative so much as critically challenging. I'm not even trying to change your mind, but offer my own point of view and explain why I disagree. The thumbs down may not be warrented, but my thought there is the interaction drives the algorithm either way. I'll gladly remove it though if it has a negative impact.
The "DMs who think they're there to 'author' a story" are the storyteller while the story enabler knows they are there to "help to tell one". Who is really being pedantic here? The fact is you agree but disliked the chosen labels. I personally think the labels are appropriate but thet are just labels. Change the labels if you dislike them. It is clear you actually agree. How about a DM is not a storyteller, they are a judge/referee. That fits my aesthetic better as I believe story is what players bring to the table.
I agree with pretty much all of this, Tho I do think is is more applicable to D&D than a lot of other games that take a more lose and storytelling approach. To each their own. As for the fudging I still have to disagree. To say that the it is not the DM's story is kind of untrue and ducking away from the truth. As a DM you are the one bringing the whole world into life, inventing the stories and the characters, informing the tone and scope of all the happens, to pretended that you are simply proving the story for the players to tell themselves is just not acknowledge the role and sway you really have. Fudging like any tool of the DM just needs to be used only when it is truly called for and with foresight for what behaviour it will encourage. I'm not saying to make the players unkillable and have everything always work out, but you would have to be crazy to think that an extremely rare but expertly used fudge wouldn't heighten the experience of a whole campaign. Maybe fudging is the darkside, but Kreia is right, the light and the darkside deep down are just the same thing.
I like to say we don't make stories, we make history.
Well said!
I don't agree in any way with you.
@@albanmahoudeau1779 I respect your opinion. Not everyone has to play RPGs the same way.
I rarely, but did occasionally, fudge the dice when I thought the players were just having real or extreme bad luck. I tried to give them a fighting chance. Ultimately all you can do is present events, NPCs and situations against backgrounds. The character provide the action and write their own stories.
Preach my brother. Otherwise that's how we end up with DMs who create elaborate worlds and complain how their players don't care about their world.
I feel the DM should present the campaign world as it is, while the players make decisions based on how they would like it to be. This gives the players agency but without any guarantee of success let alone survival.
"The Dice Never Lie"
-J. Eric Holmes.
The D.M. should be a referee, as indeed he is called in the 1974 rules.
The story is _what we look back on_ after we play the game
Damn this is so good I'm totally stealing it from now on
I started DMing in the early 90's. My approach is that I am a "worldbuilder". I create an initial sandbox, and from there my job is to figure out what butterfly effects the actions of the players apply to the world forward. There may be areas in that initial state that 1st level parties have no chance of conquering. That's OKAY. The players can research/scout such areas to discern their chances. Should a party get TPK'd, that becomes part of the world. The next party that attempts that area, may find the spoils of the defeated party. Timekeeping is key. Some options are time sensitive. Nemeses are created through party actions. Let's face it... if an established villain is already targeting a 1st level party...they're doomed. Rather, their own actions turn otherwise mundane NPCs into some of the best villains.
Thank you. This is all the DM advice that is missing in 2023!
"There is no plot," and "Nothing exists until it hits the table."
Absolutely!
My campaign's first mini-boss was a goblin boss that they captured, turned over to the local authorities, and promptly forgot.
Can't wait for the party to find him again at about level 12 as the head of the crime syndicate of the capital city of the realm. Suitably scarred from a medieval 'interrogation', surrounded by minions, and thirsty for revenge...
Brilliant call back. Drop very subtle hints that he’s still alive and out for the parties heads.
I love those kinds of call backs myself. So much fun and it flows logically from the PLAYER'S actions. THEY influenced the direction of the setting... for good or ill... what they do matters!
@@danielrowan4716 That would be the kind thing to do, but I just really relish the thought of blindsiding them. Even the villainous monologue of "You don't even remember me?! Three years in Hell and a missing eye! I remember you! Well you won't forget me ever again!!"
@@dutch6857 you sir have my respect and admiration. It is one of the purest joys to surprise your party. I’d literally go “eye for an eye” then.
@@danielrowan4716 Kind words, thank you.
I usually do a Zelda approach, I try to make a cool place for the players to explore, part of what makes a place great is its lore but I don't do much more story than this. Then I set a complication and I let the players interact with the world as they see fit.
Because of that my adventures aren't filled with great dialogue, story lines and things like that, but gameplay-wise I feel they are fun to play.
Also I'm very bad at making up stories, so I let things play out of the interactions of my players, and I just play along taking into account my NPCs' motivations and the world's internal logic. If it's a supernatural world, something supernatural will happen, etc.
I take a similar approach. I’ve created a campaign map with a few major cities, a dozen or so points of interest and smaller population centers; threw in some plot hooks and some interesting NPCs then let them make decisions from there.
I 100% agree on not fudging dice rolls. I'd like to hear your opinion on a more subtle way of guiding the game such as not playing the monster's tactics to 100% lethality all the time.
Absolutely. Or you can lower hit points, the monster's lethality. There are TONS of ways to modify an encounter without resorting to dice fudging. I think DMs just to easily jump to this as they don't have the tools to deal with it any other way.
It feels like it's been 3 years since you did a DMs Foundry video Cap.
It had be awhile! And that was a topic that bugging me like crazy. lol.
The term I always use is "Plot is in the past." Like you said there is no plot until it's already happened at the table.
Almost had a TPK at my BFRPG table last week. Creatures rolled awesome, players rolled terribly. I DID reference the downed character’s rod of magic missiles lying by the character. The player decided to pick it up and fire both missiles at a single creature..and rolled max damage, which was exactly what they needed to put the creature down. From there I triggered a morale check and every single creature FAILED. They had a morale of 9 so I couldn’t believe it!
The creatures escaped, and the party withdrew and are RELIEVED, but they still have to go back and deal with them again and it has them freaked out. Had I fudged dice they’d never have had that moment.
Sometimes its a nail biter for sure! Nothing says you can't offer advice or remind them of an item in their inventory that might prove useful or what have you. You are not a 'disinterested' party. There are MANY alternatives to dice fudging, and I think a lot of times DMs are quick to jump to fudging... as it keeps them in their comfort zone... but that's part of the THRILL for me as the DM... like when you're watching an exciting action movie and you don't know if the hero is going to make it!
Not a 'storyteller' but facilitator of player experiences that builds a story. It's a co-operative hobby. Great video.
Absolutely!!
I agree with you on many points but I submit to you that rule #1 is always to have fun.
Absolutely! That includes the DM. I think if the DM is having blast, so too the players. When the DM is 'going along the journey' discovering things WITH them, it leads to some very interesting and exciting scenarios that just don't happen with a 'preplanned' narrative.
@@captcorajus Preplanned narratives should only ever be guidelines. All the players and that includes the game master should always be having fun so again, I agree.
Rule of cool is in effect. I use preplanned narratives but only insofar as it provides background or impetus for the players to act on.
I just subbed to the Audio Library!
This is the way. The DM sets scenarios and problems in the world and the story comes from how the party interacts with them.
Many--if not most--will say that 'The Empire Strikes Back' is the best of the Star Wars movies. It's certainly my favorite. It ends on a bummer but also with hope. All sorts of possibilities are open and the ending of the saga pays off because the stakes felt so much higher. It's a good thing they never produced any movies after 'Return of the Jedi' such films had they been produced would be seen as derivative money-grabs at best.
Dice fudging IS the darkside. Adventuring is not for the weakhearted! Game On!
On the point of fudging dice rolls, I think one of the best things I've heard is that, if it's a situation you want your players to win at, don't have them roll at all! This might work better in less dice-intensive and more narrative-focused games, but I think it's a good one to carry even in D&D or Pathfinder or what-have-you, or go with less binary "win/fail" and more "you still succeed, but here's a problem that arose during." Not quite applicable with straight combat scenarios, however. :D Good vid as always, Captain.
I touched on that briefly, but absolutely true! Great point! Thanks!
100% agree with the rule that story is written after the game. I take it very literally. After each game I take the role of an in-game scholar and write down everything that happened, chronicling the deeds of the party for the study of future generations. I take a little bit of dramatic license, but if a player did something totally unexpected, or rolled a 1 at a pivotal moment, then that massively affects the story in a way I couldn't have foreseen. Writing this story before the session would be more or less impossible, since I don't know how a story will end if I don't know what choices the characters will make.
10:30 this seems like a city planning problem, I mean who wants to live so close to the Temple of Elemental Evil?
Captain, great topic. I prefer the open / sandbox format but also like to help establish boundaries and parameters by feeding the party information and plot hooks. This helps direct play and give them agency. Outline but don’t railroad.
On the hiding of die rolls, I’m for hiding most except for initiative and critical rolls such as an enemy’s save that could mean victory or death. I think by keeping most of the rolls hidden it helps create tension and mystery, but by having truly important rolls in the open, it builds trust with the group.
Well articulated - I agree 100%.
Thanks, Captcorajus, for the heart. Thanks to whomever for the like.
I see the art of the soft and subtle railroad as the ultimate DM skill. When the story the DM creates flows like water around the actions of the players. The story is never static and is always dynamic. Where will the story go? Who knows, but the story plot devices created by the DM follow the players no matter where they go or what they do.
The players are not in control of the world and what happens there. The world is a living thing they are instead of participating in. Events in the world are largely beyond their control at the outset. How they react after events are set in motion makes for how the story progresses. The DM must not be attached to the idea of predetermined outcomes and, unlike an author of books, has no idea what the ending will be. If the DM perfects the art of the soft and subtle railroad the players have no idea it's even happening
The modern expectation of what a GM is supposed to do seems to be more accurately described as fantasy daycare worker than storyteller.
Good day to you all
Speaks from my heart.
I agree with you completely. The story emerges from play and is not the GM/DM's. It is in the hands of the players to do as the well and become what they will. The feast is laid before the players by the master chef. But it is up to them what they eat and what the order for their next meal. No offense to the Matt Mercers of the world, but I believe great GM's become background and not the stars of the show.
Mercer crafts his narrative based on player input... and make no mistake, those players go in directions he was NOT planning.... and he rolls with it.
Improvisation is a major DM skill... and as a skill, its something that you get better at the more you do it.
Another thing I completely neglected to mention was the accumulation of DM's assets.. maps, NPCs, miniatures, and your notes that allow you to have things 'at the ready' to make it seem like 'you planned it'. 🤣
Awesome DM advice. And a pretty cool looking Death Wish Coffee notebook I might add!
Fudging dice is so integral to 5e that some monsters have written in them “you can fudge this monster’s saving throws up to 3 times 😉😉”.
That's not 'fudging' that's ignoring. :P Ran 5E for three campaigns over 8 years, and never fudged a combat die roll.
Also, 5E monsters as written SUCK. lol.. I always modified them. Usually adding action options... otherwise they're just complete fodder for the PCs. Giving even a mundane monster a bonus action, reaction or both brings them more in line with their CR, and gets the players attention.
This is why i really prefer the title of referee, or dungeon master as opposed to games who call the ref the storyteller.
Same.
I agree with you on this. Stories emerge from the game, and dice are part of the game. I don't fake dice rolls, and I wouldn't want to play with a GM that does.
Same. I think if you ask players if they WANT the DM to fudge dice in their favor a vast number of them will say no.
Great content. Thank you for all of these suggestions.
You're very welcome.
Thank you for the like to whomever. Thanks very much.
Making NPC's with backstories, customizing enemies that fits the environment, giving the characters reasons to adventures, populating the world with culture and traditions... all of this is storytelling from the DM. If you're just randomly rolling dice to randomly generate monsters and NPC's in random areas with random backstories, you're easily replaceable with a website.
Those are definitely elements of a good story, but they are not the story. The story doesn't happen until the players interact with them.
What I think works really well is showing a few things to players and thinking about possible consequences of things they've ignored or couldn't deal with in time. And that's how I like impacting the story. Anything more I find boring
For the sandbox approach, without fudging dice rolls, it means that the GM must learn to improvise. I think improvisation is not focused on enough as a prerequisite to running a game, and so therefore railroading happens. In one module I was running, I was so concerned about running the module as written that I lost my confidence to improvise when the players went off script. I simply froze up, not knowing how to react. Fudging dice rolls is a form of improvisation, but like you have said it is the wrong improvisational technique to use. As long as the players are ok with PC death, and as long as they can be reasonable about what they expect from the GM's level of improvisational skills, a game can work. The GM goes with the flow of what the players are chosing to do, and the players are less inclined to ignore plot hooks. It goes both ways.
I roll all my combat rolls in public.
Getting into Symbaroum at the moment, and the gamemaster doesn't even roll. The players do.
Dang, hope you are able to recreate your script for The Savage Frontier, I remember buying that supplement when it came out and I used it a LOT for Forgotten Realms campaigns I ran in late high school and when I was in the Marines.
Really enjoyed the structure of the script of this one especially 👌 it flowed well, peppered with useful factoids and aphorisms.
One comment on die fudging. There is one situation where I think it is warranted. When a PC gets insta-killed with no warning and through no fault of his own as a result of pathologically unlucky die rolls. Like a trap that had no warning rolling max damage in the first room of a dungeon. Or a monster making a surprise attack, getting a crit and rolling max damage. Bam, you're dead. In these situations I think it's fair to fudge the dice and lower the damage. Why? One, because this kind of thing isn't fun for anyone and isn't likely to generate any cool stories or memories. Two, because the fact that this situation exists probably means that the DM screwed up, whether by not providing any hints about the trap or by creating an avoidable situation where the monster could ambush PCs without recourse. That said, if the existence of the trap was telegraphed or the surprise attack came because the PCs were loud and took no precautions, let it happen.
I think that's reasonable. I also think that as DMs become more and more experienced this happens less and less. Also, players learn to pick up on when their DM is trying to warn them of impending danger. I know my group knows my style and my 'DM look' and things like 'are you sure you want to do that?" are red flags of caution.
However, when they DO get caught off guard, without fail their are like, "Oh man, he totally warned us of that and we just ignored it... " and they are fine with the outcome. This sort of equilibrium is different for every group to be sure.
In my game I also have 'player chips'. The get a poker chip at the beginning of the game session and its worth one 'redo' on a die roll. Definitely helps.
This is the truth. It hurts but it is the truth. We are playing a game. Life of the characters started with dice and death should be given to the dice
I decided to briefly skim your other people's channels list, Captcorajus. After your friendly argument against fudging the die rolls, nice to see you're still on good terms with Skorkowsky. Ha ha ha! But I was pleasantly surprised you had DM It All up there. They take so long between videos, and I thought just I knew they existed. Ha ha ha again!
I adore Seth's Call of Cthulhu reviews. DM it all is great, but you're right, they take a long time between videos.
@@captcorajus hey thanks for the feedback and heart, Captcorajus, I truly appreciate them and you.
Did you consider N1: Cult of the Reptile God? This one is pretty similar to T1 in design, but with a more self-contained ending. One of my favorites.
That's a great one too! Absolutely
I enjoy taking PC assumptions and building from there. They THINK there’s a big bad, it’s really just their assumptions that have been reinforced by their actions over the sessions until it’s where they end up. Schrödinger’s big bad, if you will.
And, of course, one shots are a different animal.
I love subverting player character's expectations. So much fun! Like for example, they were after this crazy Owl Bear that was rampaging the area, and had come across a magical horn, that had affixed itself to the monster. They tracked it down, had several exciting encounters, but when they got to the cave, the owl bear was already dead. Someone had gotten to the creature first! (This was because they took a 'side trek' to do something else before gong after the owl bear.
@@captcorajus in my case the parties has assumed something was important so then spend a ton of time trying to figure it out.
So…ok, it’s important now.
I commend your attempt to grapple with this nuanced topic. I think the dice topic and story topic probably could have been two separate videos. On the topic of story and the GM, I think you missed the mark a bit. Just because the GM has a sense of factions and how things will likely play out between those factions doesn't necessarily mean that the GM is railroading. Also, in the examples you gave around the snake cult, those were all scripted arcs. I think ultimately what you're trying to say is that it's important that players choose the arc they're engaging with, but they're still going to have to engage with some sort of arc that the GM has a plan for.
Yep! Those look like "plot threads" or "story arcs" to me. I've found that some players like a "true" sandbox, whereas others like choosing arcs, whether related to their character's backgrounds or by interacting with the world around them.
Thanks... I did my best... lol... Arc or no arc, its what the group likes. The point is, its the PLAYERS that get to choose.. and the DM is mailable enough to roll with it. That the DM is COMFORTABLE enough to be able to relinquish control of the campaign's direction. That's all. :)
ya gotta let the dice fall where they fall...had a black dragon kill a party member "who was a dwarf" got him resurrected, but we didnt have the money to afford the "platinum resurrection package" so was subject to a little randomness in the type of race he came back as...dude ended up coming back as an ELF! we STILL talk about that.
That's classic. I remember those days. So much fun.
Thanks, this was an interesting video. I’ve been playing since 1980 so your references to OSR modules is much appreciated. I do fudge dice roles when I want to end an encounter that has become tedious or do resolve an encounter that may lead to interesting possibilities - I hope that doesn't make me a Sith Lord?
Lol... I don't know.. once you start down the dark path.. ha ha.. but know what you mean... I've been there with a tedious encounter myself, but rather than fudge a roll... as I'm rolling all my combat dice out in the open... i just lower the hit points so the next hit ends it or something along those lines.
One thing a DM controls completely is miscellaneous modifiers. Invent stuff that puts opponents at a disadvantage. Invent stuff that puts the characters at an advantage. Just make it believable. Rolling secret dice that don't mean anything throughout is a great way to give yourself room to add something latter. Weather conditions shift. Cave in. Barrel in the corner suddenly has flammable contents. Stuff that later looks like it was planned and there were random chances for those issues to manifest themselves. We create random tables for all sorts of things. Why not miscellaneous shifts like those above? Roll randomly and occasionally have one of those things actually happen. Suddenly need to shift the tide of battle, the eagles arrive! Which eagles? Make it up, possibly after the battle is over. If you areconsidering fudging dice, then perhaps you should consider rolling more instead and only use those extra roles when they're really needed.
@@captcorajus That,s great advice. I do buff monsters and change their abilities, especially in published adventures. I warn players to expect this, and I often defer to the ‘ rule of cool.’
@@0ptikGhost thanks for the advice, I understand it is risky business messing with dice rolls, but, for me, it is done sparingly and never during a boss fight or other major encounter.
Great video!
Like most things balance is best in my opinion. Have a frame work of events and let them react to them.
"Adventure Facilitator" > "Storyteller."
All of this is true if you preface the whole video with: "If you have self-driven and motivated players, then maybe a pure sandbox is a more rewarding experience"
Also, I think that Rail Road vs Sandbox is a false dichotomy, You are talking about Linear Adventures vs Sandbox, a linear adventure is not the same as a Railroad
IMO:
Pure Sandbox: There is no premade storyline, there is a couple of hooks and the players have to step in and make the worlds theirs, you have to have the right type of players to do that.
Linear Adventure: There is a predefined plot and is expected that the players follow it and not wander around to much.
Railroad: The players have to solve the conflicts in the way that the GM wants. This can be true both in a Pure Sandbox and in a linear adventure.
In the end, is all about expectations, a sandbox demands a lot from players, in my experience most players enjoy more a linear adventure than a pure sandbox.
My favorite is a "limited sandbox" a place with different and not necessarily related things to do and an overarching main plot. Is the Main Quest + Side Quests formula, the players can engage with the "optional" content as they like while going through the main story. The Lost Mines of Phandelver is an example of this.
I did preface the video with "Don't let me tell you what fun is."
I think if you give players, even 'unmotivated ones' defined choices you can manage to get things going. :)
Maybe I miss understood the core message of this video, but what i got from it is that a pure sandbox is a more rewarding type of game.
That is maybe true, but only if you have the right type of players, the type of players that are self-motivated and that play in a way that a "main story" emerge naturally in the sandbox, are the minority.
If you don't have the right group and create a pure sandbox and throw them in there, the sessions will be boring AF.
Old-School, baby
Great video.
Thanks!!
Fine job, Captcorajus. What if one doesn't fudge dice rolls only because they can't act to save their life? Ha Ha Ha
In our Pathfinder campaigns, we use a luck system that can prevent bad luck and create dramatic moments!
Luck Values: (-7) - 24
-Expenditure 1d4 Luck (Must have at least 1 positive Luck Point): You may use Luck to affect one event brought about by an action you take or one that directly affects you. (Examples: Hjalmar using Luck to make Admiral Blood fail a save against a spell HE cast. Timbo using Luck to disarm Admiral Blood. Slayn using luck to make a save vs Zone of Truth which he was affected by. Combat Rewind a la Rick vs. Pixies)
-Expenditure (1d4) x2 Luck (Must have at least 1 positive Luck Point): You may use luck to affect one event brought about by someone else's action which has no direct impact on you. (Examples: Bob using luck to rewind Slayn's fireball thus saving 3/4s of the party, but having no effect on him because of evasion. Using luck to make the Shin ship's guns misfire. They were targeting the ship not one individual.)
-Every time you advance a level, roll luck as per the table below. ADD this to your previous total up to the maximum defined below. Hopefully this will prevent Luck dump battles right before you advance.
Player Luck
Player Level Luck Roll Max Luck
1 1d4 4
2-3 1d6 10
4-7 2d4 16
8-15 3d6 20
16-20 4d6 24
"Let the dice decide."
LETS ROLL.
My view is that there is no story until after the game session. Recanting what you did that night, *that* is the story and the only story.
well done my liege
With any RPG game, story structure become scaffolding, in which the players construct the story architecture. The DM is not the story teller. A DM is a story guest of the players.
To the whose story is it comment - the story isn’t the dice’s either, they shouldn’t get to remove the fun any more than the others
There are OTHER tools a DM can use to sway combat in a pinch other than dice fudging. You can lower a creature's hit points on the fly. You can lower its AC. You can say it DOESN'T have this one magic item or potion you gave it... I really HATE dice fudging and I think most PLAYERS do to.
I could be wrong, but I read the comment as talking about non-combat encounters where dice aren’t involved. The story really is the characters’ (and players), the dice are conflict resolution.
My opinion anytime you alter the game mechanics after it starts is fudging. We are kidding ourselves if we think changing HP or AC mid-fight is not fudging/cheating. So embrace it if you are going down that path, all of this is for fun, so have at it!
I don't understand why you'd fudge dice rolls. Undermines the whole point of rolling dice.
Wise. :)
Sorry, the e-dog ate your script. The few times that has happened to me, it was a blessing. What I wrote the second time was much better. I hope it works out for you too. 😊
That just might prove to be the case! Stay tuned. lol.. thanks!
I…I will try not to fudge the dice…
No... try not. Do.. or do not! There is no try! 🤣
@@captcorajus *takes a deep breath…extends hand 🖐🏼 over dice….john williams music begins to swell*
Roll them in front of the Players!
What about SANCTUARY?CTHULHU MYTHOS?HARN World.???
There's no way you can be prepared with all the available stat blacks, maps and just having a coherent game of you let everything go with the flow. There need to be a framework
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. Its just a matter of prep over time. I keep a list of potential NPC names. I have a very full index card box of NPCs, monsters, and what have you and ... my DM's notebook to jot down what I come up with on the fly. That's all you need... and the ability to improvise.
Improvisation is a skill, and just like any skill, the more you use it, the better you get at it.
Keep a few 'blank' dungeon or cave maps available. A list of tricks and traps... and you'd be surprised at what you can come up with in a pinch. The players don't know what you've got going on there behind the screen. Just make it up! That's the FUN of being a DM IMHO.
@captcorajus personally I wouldn't feel satisfied throwing together a dungeon on the fly in the middle of a game. I would rather have it mostly prepared and not use it, then have to put it together right there and then.
And same thing with with quests, and story archs. For me, if u have everything prepared, It's easier for me to change course when the PCs do something I wasn't expecting cause I already kno what the bad guy wants, needs, etc. I don't think I would like the feeling of making it all up on the fly
@@Jon71992i agree with you. In my experience as a DM players enjoyed actually having a unified goal they want to achieve. You could take this guy's advice and sit their and listen to the players agrue about who gets to decide what the party is going to do next for half an hour. Or the players could sit there waiting for their open sand box ref. randomly roll up NPC s and dungeon encounters after every interaction. There is such a thing a game flow. The adventure runs seemlessly and the goal/villains and encounters make sense and the players actually accomplish and complete the scenario. I am not saying he is completely wrong here as I want the players to feel free to choose how they develop in the world individually. Where they want to set a home or keep and what friends (NPC's) they decide to make etc. But the flip side is the DM creates villains and adventures. I have a player who admittedly wants to be friend a dragon. I will definitely incorporate that into "our" campaign. But I will balance that with a villian also having a dragon. Currently too low a level to have such a powerful friend. He mentions that the DM must enjoy the game also but I can't see how allowing the players to dictate the game while just rolling randomized monster encounters would be enjoyable? For the DM or the players. What if I wanted to take the party on a pre-made module? Is this just not allowed because "I am an open sand box referee"? Answer: No, of course I can because "I am a Dungeon master" not "a random encounters table". So, in my experience players and DMs can have an enjoyable evening going on a preplanned adventure that flows seemlessly, makes sense and accomplishes a goal. But hey, the great thing about D&D and roll playing is you can do it how ever you want. But while I sit here listening to this content creator come across condescending and a bit arrogant about how his philosophical approach (improvisation) is the best. I can't help but feel sorry that he and his group might be missing out on other elements.
@trevorclapham5571 Hey, thanks for the reply! And I agree with s out of what you said. Like I said in one of the comments above, it's a lot easier to adjust the adventure when the players make a wild left turn when you kno what the adventure is/goals, wants etc of the npc/bad guys. And half the fun for me is preparing the dungeons and maps and stuff a week before.
As for the random encounter topic. I actually hate them. I feel like a lot of the time they just waist time I have stuff my players moving the game forward. I completely agree there e could be games where the idea of random tables for monsters wandering around the woods and stuff could work, but I would say 95% of my "random" encounters were encounters I wanted the players to have
@@Jon71992 I agree with you. Part of the fun of being a DM is getting to place interesting monsters and encounters for the players. Having them solve or winning the encounter and watching them enjoy it is very satisfying.
Waiting for the players to tell me what to do and generating an encounter off a sheet sounds boring and not very satisfying. Do you really need a DM at that point?
Creating interactive NPC (friendly or hostile) is so much fun. Integrating them into the world and having the players deal with them is fun. But waiting for the players to tell me what town they want to go to while I have nothing emersive made but referring to a list of random names and states and rolling what to pick is not enjoyable. It sounds boring. People need to remember that most of the RPGs they watch on podcasts are failed actors who are now being used to promote products. And people start listening to them like they are some sort of experts. lol
I have been playing for over 40 years. Yes I am old and still play a hybrid version of first and second AD&D. I have played other versions but I enjoy 1st and 2nd most. The version doesn’t matter and what is most important is a group of people enjoying they free time together. So play what your group likes best. Though I cringe listening to modern D&D players saying I am making a dwarf wizard or half orc paladin. Just seems wrong to this old guy. But what I believe to be cringe is irrelevant to what others want to do to have fun. Just like this content creator. Why is he telling people who don’t adopt his philosophy towards DM’n as railroading? I have never seen or heard of this channel before. Just a random pop up that seemed interesting to listen to. I wonder if he has any live sessions on his channel I could watch. I would be curious to see how it goes.
Edit: I went through his videos and unfortunately I didn’t see an example of his philosophical approach to DMing there. Bummer. Not surprised though. His channel seems interesting, but this video is a bit off putting as his comments in this section seems fairly arrogant. Telling people they are speaking malarkey and conflating his opinion with absolutes like he is the arbiter of truth and get this reality. Funny stuff.
I still like my concept of a rail network. It's not a one line railroad with no stops. It's not a road-trip thru "Random Table Land" either.
I enjoy designing adventures more than DMing them. At this point in my D&D life, you could call me more of an designer than a DM.
I enjoy exploring and discovering the world with my players. Its very hard for me to get 'burned out' when its going good. When that synergy is there, its so immersive.
@@captcorajus That's a sweet spot that is worth working towards to be sure.🙂
While this all sounds great, I'd like to know where you find players that enjoy taking initiative in where the campaign goes. In 26 years of running games, I've come across about 2 players that enjoy this. Everyone else wants to be shown where the adventure is, and just stick to it. It all sounds great, but unless your players are Old School as all get out, it doesn't work.
Sorry, but that's just not true. I've run things this way for MANY groups of players over the years, and it always works for me. I had a group of new school, 5E players... worked. Old school players.. Worked. Old and newschool players combined 5E.. worked. I think its all how you introduce it. How you begin your campaign.
Like the message board idea. Try that! I'm not saying that YOU don't have a planned adventure.. I'm saying that you offer a variety of choice.. that the world is a busy place... there's more than just 'one thing' to do.
There's some missing children in the nearby village, a wizard needs an escort to an old tower, the local baron is having trouble with brigands on the road. What do you want to do?
Pit it to them THAT WAY... THEY choose. You STILL had set adventures, but the players decided what they wanted to do. This sort of 'choice' engages the players in the setting.
@@captcorajus Sorry but it is true. I'm absolutely going to keep trying, maybe I will find players that want more that quest givers. But it has actually been true in my experience, unfortunately.
If players want to be adventurers then you are the Dungeon Master. If players want to be heroes then they need a storyteller.
The former doesn't require Big Bads or vast, overarching narratives. The players are the central force, and the story is their story. The latter is about the conflict. The villain is the mover and shaker while the players are reacting to the circumstances other forces have set before them. So basically, Keep on the Borderlands vs. Descent into Avernus.
Sort of... but also ... pretty wrong. The point is, which you missed if you didn't completely watch the video?
I can craft as deep a narrative, and as in depth a role playing experience without crafting everything beforehand as in the 'Avernus' storyline.
However, before the campaign begins, I have no idea that 'going to Avernus' will be a thing... who the 'big bad' is going to be, or even if there is going to be one. Those things happen organically as part of the ongoing narrative, and is dictated by the player's choice.. to do something... or NOT do something, both things are impactful choices.
Thus, no 'story teller' needed. The 'STORY' is what you have to tell AFTER the campaign is over. 😀
@@captcorajus That's because you're sitting down to the table with a blank slate (relatively speaking). All options are on the table...pun not intended. However, many player groups do NOT sit down that way. They arrive expecting to be the Fellowship of the Ring and the DM to have Sauron's machinations planned out. That ominous, hard to resist wizard tower off to the side? Not optional. Some players just outright EXPECT Saruman to be planned out and try to bring the players to him by any means necessary. They may bridle at "railroading" consciously, but they still want to see all the story bits unconsciously.
@@chaosgyro Here's the thing. The players DON'T KNOW THAT I DON"T HAVE A PLAN. lol
From their perspective, it SEEMS like it flows from a plan where actually it didn't.
If you've never DM'd in this style, or played with someone who DM'd this way and was good at it, this might be a very hard concept to understand.
Trust me, if they want to be 'The Fellowship' then that's how it will go.. remember this is about PLAYER CHOICE after all.
Isn’t it the job of an NBA referee to direct the action of the game? To tell the story, to manage the outcomes, to fudge the rolls?
Well, actually
Sort of, for your argument to work the referee is responsible for designing the opposite teams, the building they play in and the rewards.
Seth Skorkowsky had a great opinion on dice fudging that I've kept to heart ever since.
Dice fudging should never be for the GM's own desire whether for or against the player's success in the game, ans should be reserved to correct if they feel that the encounter was too overwhelming (to an unfair degree) and to be in service of the player's enjoyment. Death and fear of death should always be present and never cheated if happens, but having someone in a last stand with a dark knight to lose initiative and die immediately to a critical hit instead of getting a chance to make that last stand (and most likely die all the same) has the same result, but thw GM has enabled the players to have a great story thanks to him fudging one roll during the fight.
Fudging is something that should be exceptionally rare but used when in service of correcting mistakes or when a great story opportunity pressnts itself. Isnt that the reason we have a screen to begin with?
I say to the 'dark knight' example.. so what? That's the way it goes. If he wants to claim that makes a 'great story' that's his choice, but I say its a bunch of malarkey. I've not fudged dice in 20 years and there's no one at my table going to say they aren't having a great time. I agree with Seth on a lot of things, but not this.
IMHO, fudging is a crutch that DM's use to keep the game in THEIR comfort zone. Who's to say that the character's death like that won't make a great story? First.. the OTHER players KNOW its on! This guy means business.. and two if you're not willing to accept the results of the dice they why are you even rolling? and three, who's to say that the NEXT character that player rolled up.. wouldn't have ADDED something to the campaign... and finally, if they DIDN'T defeat the Dark Knight during that encounter.. when next the DID encounter him and defeat him, it would feel all the sweeter.
Dems the breaks. The game is STILL fun when the unexpected happens like that.. and in fact, I'll claim that its the unexpected that keeps the game interesting.
Its a slippery slope. Once you start down the dark path....
I find player character attachment is the biggest motivation for dice fudging as in the dark knight example. I find everyone forgets characters can be ressurected. Is it hard? Yes. Expensive? Also yes. Worthwhile? Maybe. Gone are the days of rolling up 1st level characters to replace your fallen 6th level character. Or are they? Retreat. Mourn the character. Give it an appropriate burial. Restock. Gain some more power. Chase down the original foe. Seek revenge. Except the original foe also had some time to rebuild. Now they've gained a new minion. The reanimated corpse of your fallen friend!
@@captcorajusfudging dice is to keep the game in the DM's comfort zone? Talk about Malarkey. lol
@@trevorclapham5571 Not malarkey, reality. Sorry brother... Truth is truth. Some people can't handle the truth. 🤣🤣🤣
@@captcorajus glad you could fill god’s shoes and self proclaim reality based off your opinion. lol
YOU SHOULD WORK FOR PATHFINDER'S PAIZO.
I agree with most of what you say about building a setting and letting it evolve based on what the players do. But I've got to disagree on the subject of "job boards". To me this is an incredibly cheesy and anachronistic device for a fantasy RPG. Story hooks shouldn't be written out, like quests in video games. They should arise out of interactions with the world and it's inhabitants. IMO anyway.
I agree, but for that to work, the players need to push the story and adventuring.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.....unless you pay attention to what the Jedi do. There are times for sandbox and there are times for plot. There are times for dice fudging and there are times for no dice fudging. There is a certain zen moment when the DM realizes that there is no one true path of control vs randomness. That there is a time for every approach.
As I said, don't let me tell you what fun is. However, I don't think 'every approach' is worthwhile. Adopt an approach that suits your style. But if you 'sometimes fudge the dice' then.. you fudge the dice. The question then becomes what are you fudging in favor of? The players? The 'story'? or your own comfort zone?
I just don't do it. :)
@@captcorajus Is "If you sometimes fudge the dice, then you fudge the dice" like if you sometimes wear shoes, then you wear shoes? I sometimes eat, so I eat?
I roll in front, not behind a screen. 99 percent of the time I start fudging dice is when the combat has gone from being fun to a tedious slog. The players have become disengaged to the point where they are not even looking at my dice. It is the exact opposite of the tooth and nail combat where the players are looking at my every dice roll. So when the slog happens and the players eyes are glazing over, it is easy for me to call the result instead of going with the dice. I never fudge to keep characters alive. I fudge to alleviate boredom.
In my opinion, plot is the players responsibility. The DM is responsible for setting. Players dictate plot through character action and the DM develops it just enough so the players can continue to drive the plot. The DM uses the setting via NPC action to develop that tiny bit of plot the players hinted at. Of course, dice are also a great way to develop all things. The best DMs do not control plot. They control randomnes. They use the setting to materialize that randomness. If, as DM, you are controlling plot, then you have already decided on and developed a particular story. The players are just responsible for their lines and actions of minor consequence. That deprives the players from too much in my book.
@@captcorajus As a DM you have a million options, if you don't want the possibility of a TPK then include in your world something like a Gandalf style figure who has the possibility to bring aid at a critical time, but when it comes to dice fudging sooner or later such fudging will destroy the player's belief in the world you have created. Take this basic scenario, a badly wounded Ogre swings his club at Rodric the Fighter who has 17hp left.......1) The DM rolls behind the screen, the player has been in several similar situations before and await his response, the DM says "the Ogre's club comes thudding into your shoulder with tremendous force.....you take 15 damage!" the player records the damage and the party easily despatches the Ogre before its next action, it was supposed to be exciting because the character 'nearly' died but in the end it was the common outcome of this world.......2) The DM rolls in the open, even though the party is making short work of the Ogre every player is attentively watching the rolls/action play out, they know from previous rounds that this Ogre's club does 3D6 damage, a 19 and a hit, there is an audible "oooooh" from some of the players, 3D6 now tumble across the table for the damage roll, Rodric's fate is in the hand of the Gods, whether the damage is 5 or 8 or 15 the nearness to death will feel the same, and if the roll is enough to kill Rodric (17 or 18) then the story will be a well remembered tale!
This is a more proper take. Modern takes are obsessed with RPG's being "storytelling games" where they develop some sense of entitlement that it's no longer an actual Game (aka threatening challenge) and everything must tell some Grand meta-Narrative. That almost becomes a railroad in itself but in favor of the players to be "main characters" with privileged "actor" status in the world. You get to act. But so does everything else.
Players decisions don't control everything and never should. Reality exists with _TENSIONS_.
Flat ontology.
Vous êtes TOUS Des Drows !
🍻🍻
Pro Tip the Little Guy in the Robes turns out to be Venger's Dad.
You want a story? Go read a book. ;)
This is fine if you're running a module. However if you run a quality narrative and leave a lot of open threads then the ending is not preconceived. Your ability to worldbuild and create is what is holding you back, not that you need to "storytell" it's that you are not that creative and want to run a safe module with many options.
!!!
Why are there DM screens if the DM is not supposed to fudge die rolls?
💥 Truth Bomb 💥
Well, in addition to hiding your maps from the player's eyes, I also covered that right here: 19:35
They are useful to hide reaction rolls, and also the thief's rolls for hide in shadows are made by the DM behind screeen
That is nice as long as you play on a table with pen & paper. But as soon as you move to PC and to digital platforms, tou simply cannot have 100% sandbox, you must have things already prepared for the players, you can't do them on the fly...
I use Fantasy Grounds all the time.. and certainly, you DO need to have player maps handy to give to them if they go in that direction... but I sandbox on VTT same as at the table just fine.
In fact, I find it EASIER a lot of times as I can whip up an encounter quite quickly since everything is searchable.
I have a variety of 'Generic' combat maps.. maps on the road, maps in a wilderness.. etc. The more you play on a VTT, the larger your accumulation of assets becomes and the more you have available for 'on the fly' elements.
All my games are on Fantasy Grounds and it doesn't stop me from maintaining a sandbox approach. I do have a general idea between games of how things are going based on what the players tell me though.
Only if you allow the digital tools to rule your play. I remember a time when I wanted my video games to play more like TTRPGs. Now we've forgotten how to play without digital tools and are transforming our TTRPGs into semi-manual video games.
I fully believe players should create their oen maps, even when distributed online. The digital tools should make it easier for the players to do the thing they would have done on the table. It makes no sense for characters and/or players to have semi-perfect knowledge for a dark network of underground passages because they laid eyes on them once briefly. Exploring the "room", including mapping, should take time and is a loud affair. If they don't map, then there should be a chance of getting lost. If players remember the way, reward them by not letting the characters get lost. If players cannot remember the way and didn't take the time ti make a mao, then they will naturally get lost, unless they get lucky...
I gave this video a thumbs down, despite the fact that I agree with you on most of what you say (200% on dice fudging!). I want to be up front that I deeply respect your opinion and your channel, but I need to respectfully disagree with you here.
I dislike the video because I think your initial premise is deeply flawed. I think your definition of Storyteller is very specific, and not at all a universally understood meaning of the title.
(Edit: I buried the lede here, so I want to say plainly, my gripe is one of semantics. I think the real problem is DMs who think they're there to "author" a story, rather than help to tell one).
I find the hair-splitting difference you make ("Story Enabler" vs. "Storyteller") to be grossly pedantic (Edit: and I know, I just got done making a semantic distinction between "Teller" and "Author" - but I think there's a deep divide between telling a story and authoring one. Not so much between telling a story and enabling others to tell it... the latter is just telling a story cooperatively - see below for why that distinction bothers me).
As a DM, I am VERY MUCH A STORYTELLER. And I think all good DMs are, whether they recognize it or not.
That doesn't mean I plot out a strict narrative that the players can't deviate from, no matter the choices their characters make. That's not the kind of storytelling you do in a TTRPG.
Far from it: the players portray characters in the story, and as the DM, I don't have narrative control over the choices those characters make.
I do have control over how the world responds.
What I do is create narrative moments. Story beats. Events that will take place, provided the players don't somehow change the narrative in ways that preclude or alter these events.
Being flexible as a DM is part of the art of TTRPG storytelling. You're not telling the players a story - you're the narrator of the story they're crafting out of the materials you give them.
Killing your darlings (i.e., letting some pre-planned moments fall to the wayside in favor of the story the players are telling) is key.
My favorite example of this sort of adventure planning is Horror on the Hill. I was amazed at how much STORY is in that old module, despite it being at first glance a typical published adventure of the day (1980's). Many of the monsters are given deep characterization - whether the family of Ogres in the caverns, or the Neanderthals that they are opposed to. The inhabitants of the cottage on the hill. The mad berserkers in the maze, or the true villain at the module's end.
What in many cases would have been a simple set of stat-blocks turns into little vignettes that require storytelling skills to portray. These NPCs have motivations that can provide a number of different responses to what the PCs do, and you very much are telling the story through those NPCs eyes.
It's a give and take. You tell part of the story, the players tell their own character's part.
All that said, I chafe at many of the same things you do: DMs who feel as though the game is their story to craft, who railroad too strictly or limit player choice.
But I find the notion that "Storyteller" conjures such imagery rather myopic. In some cases, I've seen people react rather childishly to the title of Storyteller, even in games where its use was meant to shift the focus away from game mechanics and towards collaborative storytelling.
That ugly sentiment is rooted in a rather snide attitude I've seen crop up in the last decade or so - people who insist that TTRPGs are all "collaborative storytelling" - and that the GM is "just another player" (the implication being that Players should have as much - if not more - narrative control than the GM).
I'm not saying this is your point of view - I don't get that impression. But that attitude is where I see the most frequent pushback against "Storyteller" as a GM title.
Now, I also grew up playing other games as well, like Vampire: The Masquerade, where the GM is actually called the Storyteller (ST). So my understanding of what "Storyteller" means is not what you're railing against.
That said, I have to die on this hill. A DM is a Storyteller, just as they're a Referee.
And again, I do want to add, I couldn't agree more with what you say about dice fudging. That's one of those ugly habits that DMs adopt when they see their role as the AUTHOR of the story, rather than the TELLER.
My problem with the term story TELLER is that a Teller TELLS... they don't collaborate. I think its a very poor term to begin with. I prefer story enabler, and I'm totally willing to die on that hill all day long.
The 'Story' is what you have left AFTER the game is over. Before that the very best you have is a vague outline of potential plots and directions. Then the players are involved, you play it out, and afterwards .. THEN you have a story to "tell".
Seems pretty upfront and reasonable. Saying I'm pedantic here, is a poor criticism. Sorry.
@@captcorajus I wholeheartedly disagree with you here. I get what you're driving at: a "story" as a tale that's recounted.
But you can absolutely tell a story at the same time you author it. Anyone who's had to makr up a bed time story for their kids know this.
And the story here doesn't pop into existence once you get to "Happily Ever After." It arises in the telling.
In general, good storytellers draw the audience in as active participants. It isn't just the teller speaking to passive listeners. TTRPGs draw the players in further, to the point where they aren't just active listeners, but co-authors of the story in progress.
The GM still does all of the same things a Storyteller does; they set the scene, narrate events, portray characters in the world, build and release tension through descriptions and pacing, create emotional stakes and set-ups and pay-offs.
Saying that the word "Teller" somehow implies you're dictating events without any input from others ignores the rich traditions and interactive nature of storytelling.
Fixating on that word ("tell") as if it can only mean "Command" or "Dictate" or "Recount" misses that ultimate goal of storytelling: to transport others to a different time and place. To invest them in the events. To describe whay happens and make them wonder what will happen next.
Splitting that hair is like saying "Game Master" isn't appropriate because it implies the GM is in complete control of the game - when we all know that's not the connotation.
So I'd feel the same way if someone was arguing we should call them "Game Facilitators" - it ignores the actual traditions of Game Mastery in favor for a thin definition that plays into the word's sterotypes of bad-GM fuckery.
For what it's worth, I do think terminology matters, and the words we use reinforce our biases. But I also think there's a point where it starts to feel less like constructive discussion and more like quibbling over semantics and gazing too closely at our own navels. (Not saying you're doing this - I don't think you are. But a lot of people who reject the term Storyteller are really reacting to a chip on their shoulder from a bad, railroady DM experience).
In any case, again, I don't think Stories are necessarily the final product of a TTRPG adventure/campaign, but the connective tissue that builds on the framework of the DM's preparation.
(Edit) - I'm on mobile, so please forgive any typos. Also I want to reiterate, you're one of my favorite D&D-related channels, and I don't mean this to be combative so much as critically challenging. I'm not even trying to change your mind, but offer my own point of view and explain why I disagree. The thumbs down may not be warrented, but my thought there is the interaction drives the algorithm either way. I'll gladly remove it though if it has a negative impact.
The "DMs who think they're there to 'author' a story" are the storyteller while the story enabler knows they are there to "help to tell one". Who is really being pedantic here? The fact is you agree but disliked the chosen labels. I personally think the labels are appropriate but thet are just labels. Change the labels if you dislike them. It is clear you actually agree. How about a DM is not a storyteller, they are a judge/referee. That fits my aesthetic better as I believe story is what players bring to the table.
I agree with pretty much all of this, Tho I do think is is more applicable to D&D than a lot of other games that take a more lose and storytelling approach. To each their own. As for the fudging I still have to disagree. To say that the it is not the DM's story is kind of untrue and ducking away from the truth. As a DM you are the one bringing the whole world into life, inventing the stories and the characters, informing the tone and scope of all the happens, to pretended that you are simply proving the story for the players to tell themselves is just not acknowledge the role and sway you really have. Fudging like any tool of the DM just needs to be used only when it is truly called for and with foresight for what behaviour it will encourage. I'm not saying to make the players unkillable and have everything always work out, but you would have to be crazy to think that an extremely rare but expertly used fudge wouldn't heighten the experience of a whole campaign. Maybe fudging is the darkside, but Kreia is right, the light and the darkside deep down are just the same thing.