Видео

TPKs are all about expectations. If it is a small combat, there should not be a huge risk of death -- NOT 0%, but definitely not 100%. If it is a boss that has been building up for many sessions, prepare for them to attempt to end all of you.

It sounds to me like he is embarrassed of her or otherwise doesn't respect her so doesn't want her there to me. The LARPing bullying alluded to at the beginning really convinces me of it :X

I think death in ttrpg is wildly overrated as way to build tension/tone/consequence. When I think about combats at my own table that I found particularly interesting/excited/compelling they’re usually combats where the consequence has nothing to do with player death. One of the combats at our table that was the most exciting and got the most full participation was a combat we were told specifically we could not die in. The fight was with a rival party and had a lot more to do with personal relationships and interactions. We still fought insanely hard (mostly cuz we wanted to kick the leader of the party, who we just watch abuse one of their fellow party members, ass.). Knowing we couldn’t die, didn’t mean we didn’t fight hard or smart. I just think they are just more interesting ways to build tension and consequences in a combat than just character death. In fact, I think if you go from one deadly combat to another deadly combat where you’re worried about a PC dying, you can just got numb to it pretty quick. If you’re playing a meat grinder game whatever, do as you please. But in a heavy role-play, heavy plot game getting killed in a random encounter simply from bad rolls, it takes the wind out of the game in my opinion.

Holy crap. Vic. You keep shifting the definition of what you're trying to discuss (in the TPK talk) and *you won't let Eric finish a single freaking thought*

Thank you, Eric! My husband is so disappointed that I couldn’t continue watching Breaking Bad, I just couldn’t get into it and it was so stressful to watch😭

GoT is perfect example of my philosophy on death in TTRPG. It's not antogonistic because it's not targeting you but also there's no plot armor. You made decisions to get you into the situation, now you have to make the decisions to get out. I don't want a TPK and I would NEVER try for one, but if they chose the situation. . . a group of goblins ambushing my lvl 3 party versus my lvl 3 party deciding to raid an ancient red's hoard are going to have two very different outcomes. A death doesn't have to be a plot or story beat, it doesn't have to be meaningful, but it also shouldn't be meaningless (ie, Avernus' ridiculous exhaustion mechanic).

No matter your gender, you have the right to feel attractive, no matter your body shape.

You're causing more problems than your solving Telling white men to stay in their lane isn't helpful

Homebrew rule (which I use for my own homemade game system as well) is a Graze/Hit damage mechanic. I also do a reliable damage mechanic in combination where if a Melee Weapon/Unarmed Strike cannot roll lower than half its die total. - Graze: Hitting an Armor Class results in normal damage. Deal damage normally. Using Reliable Damage a 1d8 rapier would always do 4 damage if you roll <4. - Hit: Hitting 5 over an Armor Class results in an extra damage die. Using Reliable Damage from a rapier combined with the Graze/Hit mechanic means the 1d8 damage does 2d8 damage instead and both dice cannot roll lower than a 4, resulting in at least 8 piercing damage always (4 from each die).

Pathfinder Adventure Path's are great imo. I'm running a longterm campaign off of what I think is one of the worst AP (Second Darkness). The trick is finding things to add to fix it.

Only confrontationally motivated GM's consider it a fight with their players. I approach GMing as I have a story arc that I think is cool, and that I want my players to run through in the hopes they also think it's cool. I'm not trying be Dark Souls and see how many times this one NPC I built can TPK my friends, forcing us to start over. That's not the goal for me as a GM. To me, if the party wipes....well the story's over. It didn't get a conclusion, there was no dramatic resolution, hell they didn't even get to MEET the NPCs that were instrumental to the HOURS of prep work I put into this campaign. Why in the seven hells would I want to just kill them off before they've even left the prologue starter town? To me, ttrpg is like group improv, with the GM as the host/director, and the players as the improv troupe. I give them some broad framework of the situation they are finding themselves in, and then they improv how they're going to handle it. To me, that's the core of a fun gaming experience.

So just to be sure, is this a gorgon or a Medusa? Also, this was MCDM's Medusa, right?

Interesting double down on (a)genuity. Cleverness I’m definitely (IN)genuity. But there is likely a reason you combined those.

Re: pronunciation of "ingenuity", I'm wondering if maybe you're thinking "ingenue" which has the soft ae sound at the beginning of it, vs the short i sound at the beginning of ingenuity. ❤

I think your mother's brit is showing. It's 100% INgenuity. As to the point of the episode, great DM tip. I think the key thing there is to notice that Eric thought "Ah man! My player's outsmarted me, this sucks!" but his players thought "Ah! We outsmarted the MONSTER! We're awesome! This is great!"

Perils and Princesses sounds SO incredible! Also a Folklore/Fairytale girlie (heck it was part of my degrees!), but honestly the fact that it sounds like it emphasises the "soft skills" is absolutely going to set it apart. Soft skills are so undervalued in life, jobs, games, ttrpgs, etc. Our daughter is 6 and I'm going to look into it as a potential entry point for her to tt game with me and my husband. He will totally be a princess and own it, too. 😂 👸

I agree with Victoria for DnD XP does not make sense. But for games like Earthdawn I very much agree with Eric, It makes a lot of sense. For two reasons. Earthdawn is a build your character system. So by having XP the character decides what will improve. 2nd the whole point iin that system is to become more legendary. So because of that fighting is not the purpose of the game. You get full xp if you can sneak past the guard instead of fighting them. Infact some times I think that is harder so I award more XP in that situation. I even once gave an xp award when one of the larger party members fell on a smaller party member in combat. My reason was the village they were protecting saw it. And for them it was a fun story and it is part of the groups legend.

I wish someone would turn ACOTAR/TOG into a d&d book so I could DM and make my boyfriend play 😂

So those Griffons who were convinced to leave, they are going to be back aren't they? They can bring consequences, whether good or bad, or both.

Speaking of players hating villains, in pro wrestling there is a thing called "go-away heat" that is useful to apply to ttrpgs. As opposed to good, productive heat (the love-to-hate villain), go-away heat is when the players are just feed up with a character and genuinely don't want them in the story.

I'd Crit That... I would suggest making two separate videos here. The first 19 minutes had noting to do with villains unless the villain was a lack of fat characters. Take the first part (about 19 minutes), relabel it to some thing like "Thick and Beautiful Elves/Characters", and post it separately. Just a thought... P.S. at about 33:10 you guys went down the path of rules and some examples of what you like & dislike. This could possibly be another separate video since it has nothing to do with villain and how to make the player hate them...

I'd Crit That... Victoria is a thick and beautiful woman to the point where I might be able to get past all her tattoos... P.S. at about 13:00: When talking about the stereotypical female elf. To me that is small and petite. I've seen may AI generated art where the female elf has large breasts popping out of her skimpy clothes and some curve in her hips, but everyone is complementing the art. Thank you for pointing this out. I'm now adding thick elves in my games... (or are those dwarves???)

Had no idea about the crit awards but I have a lot of respect for the stance you're taking. It's absurd that people who otherwise happily bend game rules and mechanics, use homebrew, and ignore part or all of established D&D lore would take a firm stance that elves have to look a certain way and whine so much about body types or skin colors in a fantasy imagination game. The game is made up to have fun, there can be literally anything you want.

wild to me that a fat character is a controversy at all. It's so stupid

I'm so sorry to hear about the insane comments you received regarding fat characters. Like c'mon people, we are LITERALLY a bunch of grown-ass adults sitting around a table, putting on voices, playing MAKE-BELIEVE for christs sake. ELVES DON'T EXIST. Skinny elves, fat elves, it doesn't matter because NONE OF THEM EXIST. We can literally do whatever we want. It's IMAGINATION. Which we clearly do, because we have humanoids that can live for HUNDREDS of years, our parties can travel and fight at break-neck speeds on very little (to sometimes) no food or rest. If we can accept these (frankly) impossible human feats, how the hell is a fat character so game breaking? Make it make sensseeee.

Message is a good encapsulation of my issues with 5e and was why I ditched it even before the OGL debacle. At first glance it's a simple, straight foward design but once you really look at it, it's a mess. It has a Verbal component, so I would definitely rule that the mouth moves. It also states that you have to point at the target of the spell, which could certainly be done subtly, but still must happen. So then the question becomes is the whisper itself the Verbal component? If they are sperate, can you whisper the verbal component then whisper the message? Does that mean you can whisper cast any spell that doesn't state otherwise? Is the pointing the somatic component or is there a flourish then the point?

For fat characters: You can make a chubby character, make fat character, you can make obese character, though I think for last option makes sense slowing them down - but rolls for heart attack are just sounds like a cheap way to make player NOT pick that options. It's like saying "you can pick anything you want, but" and then basically cut out all option except for what party and/or DM wants to push on you for whatever reason I maybe would handle as option to like... intentionally take slowing down your character, but gaining some perk in thing that doesn't require them to be fast - like history - or would even help for them nor to be fast (imo, animal handling. At least at my experience, animals usually more chill around someone who is at very least calm, so I think someone who for example is or was a vet or somehow else related to handling animals can easily gain some weight with 0 impact on their job) For hating Villain: I am no DM, but I think at least at the start players should have if not reason for having grudge against the villain, then at least reason to try get to them and then grow to have opinion on them - preferably negative, since it's called "villain" for a reason, they are supposed to be if not hated, but you shouldn't like them as a person in the story. E.g. you can relate to what character started to be an ass, but the character can hate them... for example, because they are a tyrant (classic), or even was abusive relative/partner specifically to them, and character better have reason to at very least go and fight the villain, even if "starting" reason can be relatively shallow (my character in one Pathfinder campaign technically doesn't have any drama involved with main villain - BUT she loves fighting and her party, and some party members have very personal reasons to deal with it, so it works for her)

I read that comment about making they body type a plot point and it's just weird. Does that DM also make the character's race a plot point? That would be way more of a defining feature than their body type. Hair color, style, or lack of hair, a plot point? If the player WANTS to the feature to be a plot point fine, but sometimes a character just looks a way because that's how they are envisioned. Sure, if it's a notable feature, it's fair game for NPCs to comment on (within reason) but that doesn't need to translate to story beats and plot points.

Paused the video to leave this comment. Might be unpopular but I wouldn’t play with a DM that thought they could tell me how my character looks. I would never tell a player how their character can look. I’ve had many conversations about types of characters or meshing of back stories. But I’ve never never said no to a look.

Party conflict done right is great! My favorite character ever was a duergar conquest paladin (Out of the Abyss) that saw the rest of the party members as tools and travelling with the "soft upworlders" as a means to his own ends. So on the one hand, he was a total dick BUT the party also knew that they could rely on him to further the partys survival and well being. Conversly, another player in the same game was a "hippy dippy type druid" whos shtick was ignorant friendliness but they played her in a way that was constantly detrimental to the party (still unsure if it was intentional or not) so nobody was a fan of the character and after several discussions about their behavior, that sentiment bled over to the player. I guess (realized this while writing) party conflict at a character level can be awesome but if it becomes party conflict at a player level, that's when it can get ugly.

As a DM, I wouldn't care that someone brought a fat character to the table. That being said, when you bring a character at my table with a distinguishing feature, it needs to have a backstory. But that's true of all characters at my table, I want them fleshed out. Pun intended. Did I write this whole comment so I could do this pun ? I ain't telling.

A chunky elf monk who uses their gut to make unarmed attacks, just grapples by sitting on their foes. Kung Fu Panda stuff

speak with animals is useless against a griffon that qualifies as a monstrosity and not a beast/animal. So I get how it can appear broken if that is what he let you do. But still a very effective way to deal with certain creatures, just persuade them to go away.

Bah. 3.5 Bard, Evangelist, Fast Talk. Add speak with Animals, and yopu can do this in every encounter. Against basicly everything. Heck get good at it and you can turn Every Single Intelligent Enemy into your Ally. Every single one. It can be very fun to play a pacifist in Dnd, if you know what you are doing ^^ Edit: after having read through this coment again; i in no way try to imply you dont know what you are doing. From Sweden with Love - Kami

Making that much of an impact should cost something. So if no one left, it could be a free action but if one leaves it cost an action.

Griffons have on average 59 HP. +6 on a D20 isn't reaching that for shit.

How can you play with high charisma in every game? You're missing out on the chance to be a chaotic halfling that likes things go boom

Hmm ya not that bad, I mean the free action part was a little much but honestly if their bonus was +6 that means each griffon needed to be sub 26 for this to have a chance of success a normal griffon has 59 health and if there were multiple griffons than it wouldn't be unreasonable to say people can do 26 ish damage in a round. As an action or even a bonus action I would 100% be fine with this as the ones feeling were as good as dead in a single good shot anyway Edit thanks to programmable for catching my ho mistake.

I wouldn't say DM jail hare. We've all been there, it makes the best stories

I've pretty much always told my players that they cannot roll persuasion on another PC. They have to convince the person in actual conversation if they have a plan or whatever they want to do. It's just a little way to maintain solid consent.

You guys make it hard to contribute because you're so good at covering the bases! Fully agree with Vic about the insight hot take. Insight will tell the roller if they can tell whether or not the opposing party is lying or not but not why they are lying. Depending on the roll or context it may not even tell them what the other is lying about or how they are lying. Flat out deception? Omission? Who knows. Since none of that is divulged and it's boring to just get a yes or no, I have the "liar" describe what they did or are doing to tip off the other person, if anything. As far as the free roll thing goes, if it's something you're character would reasonably know, I don't even call for a roll but I'll ask what skill you're using to determine the info the character knows/recalls. If you're stopping to study something, you most certainly are spending at least 6 seconds (using that action) to glean whatever info you can about said thing.

Rules as Written, the damage you take on as part of Warding Bond cannot be halved in any way. That being said, with how much HP a Barbarian has, that doesn't actually matter, because a) Barbarian = d12 hit die and b) whoever was attacking your Peace Cleric now has a Barbarian substantially closer to them, and they're even more pissed.

Maybe y'all should listen to the entire list. Keep vilifying GMs and you'll all be sitting around a table alone.

You can created npcs on the fly and run a module. That creativity is still there if you already have it. Players aren’t a book, they rarely stick to the book. Always be prepared to make shit up on the fly as a DM even with a module.

I do not have the creative talent to do what you do, I'd have to use modules.

As far as modules go, I like to run them, but have ALWAYS homebrewed them considerably. I've even gone so far as to use npcs, places, boss fights, dungeons and tables. Currently, I'm running Tomb of Annihilation, but there is a chance Ras Nsi will wind up with the Book of Ill Omen or turn out to be a Deathclaw or whatever the failed Lich monster dude is, or they wind up in hell because XYZ and things of that nature.

Agree with Eric on the AITA. A lot of the rulings have some kernel of relevance but the list maker's presentation of them is extremely combative and off putting. Sounds to me like the DM is extremely D&D focused and wants to "play" HIS game while his group wants to hangout while using D&D as a vehicle to do so.

I definitely agree with your guys' point about modules being very railroady. They run as if the players are all heroic, and will likely do one of 2 things. Nevermind that the characters are much more varied, chaotic, and want to push boundaries as much as they can to see what they can get away with. But with that said, as a new DM (and a new dnd player on top of it), following a module is a lifesaver. I'm currently running the Dragon of Icespire Peak, and it gives a great framework/foundation for how a campaign should run. I've been having a lot of fun creating a stronger hook for the story, and creating a few new characters or dissecting some of the dungeons. It's just nice being able to put as much or as little work into the campaign as I like.

Wedding planning is so fun....when your families behave 😅.

Nothing really to add as you guys hit any key points I'd have mentioned but I'll toss a comment for engagement ;). Good episode!