🎉 CLARIFICATION 🎉 I don't tell my players to roll checks they can't succeed (I assumed that was so obviously a bad idea that I didn't need to state it outright but judging by recent comments more clarification is needed 😅) In this video, I'm referring to situations where PLAYERS ask to make a check (if you run games where players aren't allowed to initiate checks, more power to you, this just won't be relevant to your table). If my players ask to make a persuasion check, I let them make it, because they would rather find out for themselves what is possible and what is not. If a failure would result in dire consequences, I will advise against it, but otherwise I'll let it happen - it'll take literally a few seconds, result in a moment of fun roleplay, and avoids me breaking player immersion.
If there is no chance of it happening don't let it be rolled. One of my friends got a net 20 when trying to kick in a iron door. The dm say there is a littel dent in the door. We were really upset becaus we got so hyped. We argued and he changed it. Afterward he said that he just should have us roll for it so we wouldn't expect something to happen . He also said the reason why he didn't want us to kick in the door was because he was scared to go of the pre written adventure and improvise and that he lerned to not be scared of improvising. So the moral was to only alow rolls that have a change of success or be very clear befor that the roll is only to give them an advantage. Don't do rolls just for a disadvantage. It's about fun.
@@AMK650 But your dm handled that nat 20 perfectly! Leaving a dent in the door is an amazing feat of physical prowess! Nat 20= best possible outcome. It's a lot worse to say "you kick the door and nothing happens" even without a roll that's just a lot more disappointing wouldn't you agree? There's no way a DM is letting you dent a pure metal door without a roll. You guys complained for no reason at all! Even if it ended with the dm learning to rely more on improv.
@@carriedthunder3883 1) DC 40 is not hard to attain my level 6 bard did it three checks in a row and convinced a dragon to allow her to attempt surgery on it Which is why 2) If you are asking for a check, it is possible, it may be insanely hard, but using a Dhampir swords bard, with enough cannon fodder people around, a single player can end up with a +1000 (very niche but theoretically possible) or more to a skill check RAW, no homebrew involved; under no circumstances should you be able to look at someone and say you’re 1,000 failed. Don’t ask for a skill check they can’t pass.
My rule is that a nat 20 always benefits the party even if it doesn’t succeed. So with the pirate captain, he’d laugh it off and say” you got ambition, that’s an admirable quality, I think we’ll get along quite well” this way they have improved there relations with the pirate rather then just not dying
In my first campaign I was very guilty of the 'nat 20 means you can do whatever' problem, so once a player rolled jokingly asked the shopkeep they had met twice in marriage as a joke and rolled a 20 and she said yes! Funny enough it was one of the most wholesome and nice romantic relationships in our games to this day, and their daughter became a PC in a later game!
I actually did this in my very first campaign as a player. My character was a bard, and being a bard I asked the literal first person in the first town to marry me, rolled a Nat 20 and we got married. We even had custom artwork made for her, which is still somewhere on my pc I then proceeded to play their child in a future campaign.
For the last one I always use the social interactions system in the DMG. It categorizes npcs into three different types. Friendly, neutral and hostile. Based on that the players can achieve things like "the npc gets into a great risk to help the party", to "the npc helps them if it does not involve any risk for him" for friendly npcs. Or from "The npc helps the group as long no risk is involved" to "the npc opposes the group, even if it involves risks." This way a Nat 20 won't get you very far, depending on the npc you are talking to
@@benjapizarro981 *starts to go thru PTSD moments...chaos...an hour of how do you get a horse on an airship...attacking the captain who was just an innocent man* ... Went about as planned. Will continue.
@@EndGameLooter9715 I'm going through the exact opposite situation lol. I'm about 5 sessions into my first game and I'm running my first campaign in less than a month 😅
RUclips Shorts has a wonderful habit of cutting off the last second of videos, even if they're well below 60 seconds 😅 The last word was "overboard", for anyone who missed it!
Uh, for tge locking info behind skill checks, i normally only lock troop numbers or positioning behind that info. Usually if a raid is happening, and my players are conducting it, they want numbers and placement because they're very combat focused. I never hide plot behind checks that cannot be found out with successful interrogation.
When I absolutely want to make sure the players know something, I let multiple players get a check against two DCs ~ a low DC that most would pass, and a high DC that one would pass. I'd tell the entire party the basics of what they needed to know with the low DC, then add useful info to the high DC, so that the player who got the high roll decides what to do with that info.
Kind of reminds me of the idea roll in Call of Cthulhu. If players get stuck, they can roll intelligence to get a hint as to what they are missing. They will get the hint no matter the results, but a bad roll might determine that they get the information too late to prevent some kind of bad thing, or the bad guys are tipped off to them, or some other negative consequence.
See I just do this based on the rolls players make- if it's a low rolling session, I'll probably let something happen with a 10+ to some extent. If I need to lower AC so we can have something happen in combat, I'll lower it and say, "by some miracle it actually hits this time" if it's like 1-3 lower than the AC. I have ways to make sure but still let them feel good about it. When it comes to puzzles, I kind of just never plan solutions, and let my players do stuff until they come up with something that seems like it would work. Crazy, huh?
I like to rely on passive skill checks myself. A naturally charming, seductive, or imposing character (imposing also being applied to physically appearance aka strength for a barbarian) would realistically get a response from people. If it's merited, I would roll myself to see just how much information they would get. Nothing worse than your players getting stuck with no leads simply because they've rolled bad and now the town's folk haven't taken to them.
Multiple paths to everything is always a great idea, even though it’s extremely hard to write for. A perfect example would be the original deus ex or system shock games, because the immersive sim was mastered in the 90’s
One thing you can also do for the first one is give out a small portion of the information for free and have a check give out an extra tip or hint so that the players can still progress if they fail, but can earn an edge of they succeed.
That last one can be fun. If you're a dm you should def ask your players if they want it as an option...but also make sure to tell them that makes their nat 1's just as ridiculus ;)
When having multiple players do skill checks, one thing you can do is try to narrate the skill check as a group effort. One very common misconception is that nat 20's are a guaranteed success. This only applies in combat and nowhere else. Rolling a nat 20 is you gave your absolute best but sometimes, even your absolute best isn't enough. You aren't going to convince a devout religious person, who has been that way their entire life to give up their religion on a nat 20. Much less the guiding principles of their entire life. That boulder is literally 40 tons, you may have rolled a 25 but it isn't going to move. Impossible skill checks are a good thing to have. If your players have a problem with them, you need to explain this to them. Just try your best to not use them as a selfish DM.
Yeah absolutely, that was very much the thrust of Point 3 in the vid - sometimes a Nat 20 isn't going to do it for you, or it'll just give you the least bad outcome.
I think with multiple nat 20s in a row and a good few in insight with the rest in persuasion you could. That's why sometimes I have players do multiple skill checks for something that may be particularly hard. Instead of using one skill check to move the 40t boulder I just have them roll multiple times if they want to, potentially getting injured on poor enough rolls. The funnies/most dick move thing I've had happen was when the barbarian was trying to jump and reach some broken stairs in a tower and he rolled a one. I then proceeded to have him roll a dex save. He managed to only grab with one hand and the brick came loose. He barely failed the save, so I had him take some bludgeoning damage as he raised his hands to protect his face and the brick smashed into them. It would have been way worse if it actually hit him.
One of my DMs uses a little homebrew rule: group ability checks. Basically, you give the party a check with DC of 60 or above and have everyone in the party roll. You add all the rolls together, and if it reaches the DC, it's a success.
I disagree whole heartedly on impossible skill checks cus that kills the purpose of the check instead just tell them they can roll again. A 40 ton boulder needs to move but they u dotn want them to then dont give em a skill check u do that and u say there is a chance they can get it out of the way. U could say nat 20 gets rolled then say “ok a rock slide starts and a bunch of rocks and mud and water wash down the mountain u all rush out of the way just in time and it knocks the boulder down the mountain freeing up the entrance to the tunnel for your party to enter” thats the outcome u could give because obviously no one person in the party would move a 40 ton boulder or ask everyone else to roll and see if they all got 20 too but not all of them. I would say the first 3 need to roll 20 then the other two or the other 3 got to roll 16 and higher or something (cus the more people are trying to move it the easier it will be to move) and that could be A way to handle it. Or say they roll 20 the first guy and “the boulder moves an inch” and they have to keep rolling 20’s to get to move enough inches to open the tunnel or whatever they needed the boulder to be moved for
I’m gonna try DMing myself for the first time this year and this is greatly needed. I’m working out the campaign and don’t even have session 0 full planes out yet. All I know is what year it is, what’s going on, and what the people look like. But this will definitely help for later on.
As a new DM myself, I've learned a few things. I love offering small bits of advice to fellow storytellers :D First of all-- you've probably heard this already, but your players will _always_ derail what you have in mind. Maybe not in huge ways, and it's your prerogative to steer them back on the right track, but always keep in mind that you may need to do a certain amount of improv. Remember: they aren't behind the screen, so they don't know where you want them to go. A little bit of railroading is okay if the plot demands it, but it's fun to RP some off-script shenanigans. Second, I've found that giving each player their own Session Zero is amazing in helping them realize who they're playing as. It gives you the chance to run a simple session, spread your DM wings and throw simple enemies at one player rather than four or five all at once. Third, help your players feel like they belong in this new world. Let them write their own backstory, and then take some time (as much as you need) to ask yourself: where would this happen? For example, one of my friends is playing a Goliath Ranger. She noted that her character would've grown up in a harsh, cold climate, so I found a region in the north where her village could've thrived (Goliaths are less nomadic in my world), and then gave that village a rich history. Basically, make that backstory matter. Weave the one who killed your Rogue's parents into the story as a mini-boss, revisit the monastery where your Monk trained. Perhaps your Fighter has a rival back home, vying for a position of power. Take a few sessions to steer the Fighter into a confrontation with their rival. Finally, take care of yourself. DMing is a huge undertaking, and it can be easy to be overwhelmed. If you need to, tell your party you just need a break every once in a while. Most likely, they'll understand. If they give you a hard time, well... strike their character with lightning. (jk. Mostly.) And then just have fun! Sorry if that was overwhelming, I get overeager sometimes 😅
@@josefzalusky7307 that ending bit of striking my characters with lightning reminds me of a little story. A punny story. Because every time one of the other players said any type of pun, he’d be struck with lightning. This happened *9 different times!* but because he was the barbarian, he never took enough damage to be lethal.
For the multiple players rolling for the same check, though this mainly goes for observation based checks, have the one who threw the lowest roll point something out to the rest who rolled and they simply see more than the lowest roll as they had something pointed out to them instead of looking for it on their own
The Pirate captain might find you amusing and could be willing to take you aboard his crew if you do some tasks for him instead of just giving you the ship.
Making different ways to get the same info also allows different players to be useful and make sure nobody is left doing nothing. When searching a room, the Rogue could have a lock to pick and get a note with info in it. Meanwhile the Spellcasters of the group can try different spells to get informations or detect clues, whilst the Druid can obtain (limited) information from local animals (rats or even a caged bird). That's one exemple.
On a nat 20 id have the pirate captain have them make an offer, but the offer had better be fair otherwiseit might blow up in their faces big time. Offering a few thousand might actually get you a ship, offering a couple hundred might get you tied up in the brig
Excellent advice, and I agree. I only allow dice rolls determine the outcome of a “choose your adventure. IE. Slight of Hand and may get caught, and on a fail the guards come or the bartender kicks you out of his tavern.
Fell for #3 in my very first time running a campaign and TWICE had a player talk the enemies out of combat, lucky double 20 for them, bad luck and game for the rest of the players
I feel that you can lock info behind skill checks. Just give them a differing amount of info. Such as Low roll: You find a badly damaged letter you can make out the words contact, lieutenant, and next. Mid roll: You find a note, it says. We have gotten in contact with Lieutenant Bob. High roll: You find a document that shows that lieutenant Bob has been helping the cult.
Something I learned from playing Call of Cthulhu, if you do lock important story things behind a skill check. Should they fail the check, instead of just wall blocking them or allowing them to try again later, have the story info or item come to them without their efforts with unforeseen consequences tied to it. An example: The party might have missed out on getting a story item from a dungeon, they leave unaware of its existence with their loot. Instead another adventurer or thief (or something similarily appropriate) finds it after they've left the dungeon, except the story villain(s) catch them in the act. The would be thief escapes capture just long enough to pass the item off on the party hoping to keep it away from the BBEG or possibly pass blame and get away safely. Either way the party now has the item, except the villain(s) are super aware of this and start putting out wanted posters for their arrest or sending assassins and other minions to attempt to take the item from them. Where as if they had successfully found it on their own, the villain(s) might still be unaware the party's existence.
I’ve shifted my players over from all trying to make the same check to taking the help action to give one of them advantage if it makes sense that they could. No thunder stolen, and they still get to improve their odds of success.
Its always important to keep in mind that a nat20 is not an automatic success of everything they're trying to do. A nat20 is the best possible outcome within the circumstances. As an exaggerated example, your player is falling from somewhere high and wants to roll to see if they can fly (they obviously cannot) but they roll a nat20... well, they can grab a hold of a branch and lessen the damage. Obviously tailor it to what makes sense.
The easiest way around the first problem is using the Failing Forward tactic. If you’re locking vital information behind one skill check, make sure that they get the information no matter what. “Then why roll”? To see what the information costs them, whether it be time, tipping off their enemies to their presence, gold, or something more precious (like the life of an NPC).
A lot of it comes to play style for me. Personally I’d like to tell as good of a story as possible, and that means that nat 20s will always be a success, just maybe not in the way they intended. In that pirate scenario, I probably would have had the captain offer the pc an apprenticeship to earn the boat in a few months time when he retires. The player will likely say no, but it was still a “success”.
I agree wholeheartedly with the 2nd one. There are so many times where as a low int character rolling high for once getting undercut by someone who is proficient because the DM asks for party rolls. Just ask the party for one roll
Two rolls at the same time can be pretty funny. Like one friend rolled for perception to see if the beggar was lying and the other rolled as well. One was successful and the other one wasn't. Fortunately the one who wasn't had better convincing skills, so after all everyone thought the beggar said the truth. Another possible way is to let them roll blind.
I got some background npc's they players can interact with after each adventure, and they will tell them what they missed, and helps them out in lots of other ways. However they have no bearing on the party during adventures. Thus creating a library esque research hub so they can find things they missed.
The way I handle multiple players rolling for a check is I give them all different info based on how high they rolled. That way if 2 characters both rolled above the DC, I can give them both different info that they can share with each other.
Pirate captain will absolutely give his ship on a nat 20. The players might find out later that his crew aren't loyal at all and the position is more of a curse.
Had one of my Players try to convince the Necromancer they were going up against to give up his ways and not take revenge on the kingdom that ruined his family with no reason as to why and asked to roll for it. This is one of the few times I said no because it doesn't logically make sense for someone with that much rage to just stop because some random kid says he should without any sort of reason or backing too it.
The only rule I've really broke if these is the roll 20 thing. But my campaigns are generally a little less serious. Not completely ridiculous but a little absurd so I usually make some fun shit up for a good nat 20, simply for rule of cool.
Had the info thing happened to my group once. DM was running a small pre-made campaign. Out party ended up completely missing one of the most important pieces of information by just by just not succeeding in getting it. That caused a chain reaction of us missing every other consecutive piece of information, because without the initial knowledge we simply didnt know we were even looking for them. Ended up getting the worst ending by just not getting that first piece.
About the "giving the party advantage" thing: With 4 dice, it's more likely than not that one of them will roll at least 17. With 5 it's 18, with 7 it's 19, and with 14 it's 20.
Three easy fixes for a DM 1) Use passives more, insight, perception, investigation, etc Try using this before they search the room, or if they look like their having trouble, or ask them to be specific where they are searching. If they get a nat 20 while searching the cupboards, they would naturally miss things on the ground. 2) Make a group DC, or ask if the player wants to give the other player advantage as they essentially took the help action. Everybody wins, or fails. 3) Yea, no, he's right on this one. People aren't just going to hand over their possessions just because you rolled high, at least not without compensation.
I played a level 20 short campaign where the DM believed in the DMG reccomendation that 30+ be the DC for something nearly impossible. I played a totally busted bard/fighter/ranger/paladin halfling, whose minimum roll for persuasion was 37(which I could bump up to 42 as a bonus action for 10 minutes)+1d4. He hated me by the end. He gave me a curse from a beyond godlike entity that makes everyone hate me, so al the DCs were much higher. Which I got rid off by convincing another godlike entity to take the curse for me by rolling a Nat20 hitting a total of 55. I like to think I taught him a good lesson. I ended up convincing 4 god's to worship me...
Great tips! One thing i do- In cases of letting multiple ppl roll for the same check, i then make it a group check requiring a minimum number of success. It doesnt help with the under cutting anothers roll but i find it helps to prevent players rolling till they get it
Regarding number 3, I often see on DnD stories people are like "I'm so mad my players killed my bbeg in one roll because they rolled a 23 in persuasion when they told him to jump off the cliff! D:". Ok, but like, why did you make that succeed? The high roll should have a positive outcome for them, sure, but why not, as you said, let the villain be amused by it and instead of attempting to execute them, offer them a deal instead, like "hmhm, I won't be jumping off that cliff, but I do have other places to be, that is true. I'm off for now, but if you change your mind and want to work for me, you know where to call."
Depending on the circumstances of course, Ill allow players to 'help' the expert, by also rolling but halving the helpers check and adding it to the primary check.
My own DM with checks usually gives us multiple opportunities depending on the time between them, he won't let us perform the check again until after a day or 2 worths of in-game time, even then that would need us to travel back to that area, deal with encounters, yadda,yadda
Don't let your players roll if there's no chance of success period. If they are asking for something unreasonable, tell them so. Have them rephrase it or work with them to change their interaction.
I love how u pointed out how a nat 20 doesn't automatically mean u succeed, it still has alot to do with the situation, alot of ppl seem to have that misconception.
If you can't do something with critical success then it shouldn't have been a roll in my opinion, but hey it's a game play how you and your party want. We like to play if you get nat 20 you did the thing you where trying to do. 😀
Good idea for the multi checks issue, start out with allowing someone with the relevant skills, knowledge, or background make a check. Like a fighter with a soldier background sees a uniform different from the rest, his background makes sense as he would know the general gist of ranks and stuff. However if he fails, allow others to make multi checks and give him a vague answer. So the flow of the sorry should go something like this: The Soldier sees a trim dressed man with gold braids on his shoulder being saluted. *Rolls 8 insight* Soldier: He's a higher rank then private but I can't be sure from this angle. Maybe a lieutenant or second lieutenant? *Party Rolls to find out more, Barbarian gets a 19* Barbarian: That's person gots a star on his shoulder. Soldier: ah so it must be a general
When it comes to multiple people rolling for a skill check, my DM mostly only allows 2 people to make the check cuz it's basically the other person giving the help action, but he let's us choose to have 1 of the players roll with advantage or both can roll normally. That is unless it makes sense for everybody to roll for something, like for searching for someone actively hiding from us, or climbing a cliff, or something like that. Tho I know he does do a special thing where very niche information can only be rolled for by people with proficiency in a certain skill, like History or Arcana checks on very specific things
Tying the first one and last one together, keep in mind that success and failure can come in varying degrees. Failing a skill check to open a heavy door doesn't need to mean the door doesn't open. It can mean that it opens at an otherwise avoidable cost, such as whomever opened it pulling a muscle in the process and sustaining a minor injury, either resulting in minor damage or disadvantage on certain throws in the future. It could also be something more roleplay specific, such as making themselves look like an idiot or something in the process. "You open the heavy door, but the straining from the attempt resulted in your pants ripping, exposing your bottom to everyone." Obviously in ways befitting your playgroup. Or instead of a minor punishment for failing, a minor reward for succeeding. Easier if done for roleplay purposes, such as getting to show off. "As you lift the door, your muscles ripple slightly, then the door raises. To everyone watching, despite the door looking to weigh several tons, you seem capable of lifting it as though it were no heavier than a pebble." Even if its not a roleplay heavy group, such a thing could even give the party member a bonus like an inspiration die. As for tasks with impossible goals the party is aiming for, I love the idea of success meaning "you don't get punished for being stupid" instead of "impossible thing happens." The bard asked the king to just hand over the kingdom and rolled a nat 20? Have the king jokingly play along. "Sure, you can have the crown, the responsibility of finding ways to keep this kingdom safe, and even take my wife. I'll go out there, earning money by having fun playing instruments, wooing women, sleeping around with whomever I want, and having the freedom to do as I please." Or something like that. Or maybe give them a bonus for making the NPC laugh at their ridiculous suggestion, like they reward them with a little more gold after a quest or something. Just make them a little more agreeable in general. And failure doesn't have to mean death either. It can mean a minor punishment like missing out on some quest rewards for pissing the NPC off, or banishment from an area (if it isn't needed for your story, of course), or just making a new, minor enemy (more someone that will annoy and hinder them than actually be a threat). Or if your players are good sports about it, then they just made themselves a new BBEG for a bit, because that king took the bard's demand as a threat to himself and the kingdom and now sees the bard, and by extent the party, as potential usurpers. Only if there's a believable reason and your players won't hate you. In either case, failure doesn't always need to be complete and success doesn't always grant the impossible.
For group skill checks I often let my players roll a d6 each. Then, depending on the situation, the summary has to beat the DC. Or like in a random event deception check: 1, something bad happens 2-5, nothing happens 6, something good happens 1 and 6, mostly a fight or puzzle happens but with a good reward, like items, information, mini quest triggers.
I would make it a rule that a group can only have 1 player check in a conversation, but I will allow a different check by the other players. For example if a player fails an insight check, someone else can roll intimidation.
For those that want their players to know something but want to add challenge, make it where the research or task is for how long will it take. Then add a threat to the time.
My system to roll for information is pretty complicated. I'll have multiple ways to get information and different information for different skill checks and different DCs for each. I use a Pass/Fail DC Range for skill checks especially for information with no crits. I also have the PC Background and Class influence the DC and award situational advantage on info checks. This generally means the players have 2-4 ways of getting pieces of a puzzle that they come back together in RP to build a plan.
I use skill checks all the time, my players know that a nat 20 doesn't mean what they want will always happen but will give them the best possible outcome. A nat 20 on the pirate he tells you let go to my cabin and talk, from there who knows but you at least got him to consider talking about it instead of just walking the plank. One of my players about 6 years ago was playing a wizard and during what I thought was going to end as a tpk that wizard was the only one to live now it's a npc who comes by in every campaign we play as a ghost but will only talk to 1 PC during the campaign and help nudge things in a way so the information needed of missed out on is found, he typically talks to whoever is the meat shield. so the meat shield will ask the party "umm can someone help me read this book I like the how this word looks it's funny" actual quote from our barbarian. I have made the mistakes and had to tweak things to make it work and after 6 years seldomly do I need to fix things now like this and my 8 players know and laugh when I say " I need a tobacco break" right after a question or action it means take 5 I need fresh air and a few minutes to figure this out. 6 years 12 campaigns 1 world and 12 time periods in this world. they have built kingdoms in it just to visit it later to see what happened to it in the next.
I have a very important rule that I follow: I always, always, give my players a "Win" each session. Maybe they're fighting weaker enemies than usual, maybe they unlock a piece of information, maybe they get the upper hand on an opponent (physically, mentally or politically), but I give them the opportunity to be Heroic and Succeed at Something each session. Nobody likes to be kicked around all the time. Nobody wants to have their character feel powerless and "just there as a punching bag" all of the time. Yes, there are defeats and challenges, and some challenges are just too great to overcome (maybe forever, maybe just for now)... but... Give. Them. Something.
Yes - I like to have the skill check providing a short cut to knowledge. Also a high int player should be able to maybe use a mind palace and go back to a room from childhood where a tiny bit of info is available - eg a pattern or old language was in a book studied many years back but the player knows just the empires name - this provides bonuses to investigation and time spent with intelegence and research can break through the problem
On the topic of mistakes ive made as a dm... Once i had a smart player who knows how to use spells for weird effects. I was running a modern game and they stumbled upon a bank robbery, only for the player to cast heat metal on the extended magazine of the gun one robber used mid-heist... needless to say, that npc no longer has hands.
Regarding the last: Id allow it IF the players can come up with a good reason (Like stressig they work for his boss....and have enough' knowlesge to Back this Up.....and succed on the following checks everytime they have to lie while interacting with the crew.
I would say for me personally (keep in mind i have sadly never finished a campaign, thee single campaign i was in was hardly like vanilla dnd and was just more a story with dice roles in think. And thirdly i have never been a dm) but i would say when it comes to gaining info a skill check and then two separate ways to bribe the npc seems like the best way to not do this. Makes sense considering the world dnd is set in (vanilla)
Failing forward also can alleviate the first one. So, they fail the check to get the info, but they need the info to progress the plot? Give them the information they need, but at a cost. It takes longer if they're on a timeline, or an NPC demands a massive bribe, or they only get part of the info they need (like they find a burned scrap of paper with a keyword, but that has none of the context).
“The Captain finds your words amusing and doesn’t immediately throw you overboard” is success. You should never ask your player to roll if success of no king is on the table. That’s a forgone conclusion at best & vindictive DMing at worst. Instead, expand your idea of what success means. Do the same for failure. Be willing to let the results of the roll be something different from the obvious ones the players expect
One thing I’ve seen a DM due for when two characters roll high on the same check is giving them different information that makes sense for their character to know.
Don't lock outcomes behind a rolled skill check. Use passive skill checks where possible when a character's stats would logically allow it. For example, an inherently strong character should not need to roll a skill check when lifting something heavy such as a barrel full of mead. A weaker character lifting the same object on the other hand, would obviously have a harder time doing so, so they'll need to roll a skill check. A highly perceptive character would easy notice a strange smell in the air, this could be sweet perfume, freshly baked pastries, dung, or a decaying corpse. Roll a skill check for them to find the actual source, not for noticing it in the first place. And most importantly 1) do not have them roll to see if that special someone or something that they must interactive with is actually there. Keep all randomised events/outcomes to non essential interactions only. 2) for all random events rolled, be it enemy encounters, today's weather, or traveling NPCs, keep the results grounded. Don't have a power creature such as a black dragon suddenly appear and attack your players if it's not related to the story. Don't have a beautiful summers day turn into a heavy blizzard unless it's actually being caused by something that relates to the story. And don't have them meet some random refugee fleeing a war torn nation on the open road, especially if there's no wars or raids taking place in nearby regions. Any and all of these "random" events could either result in players losing interest in the story itself, cause needless PC deaths, or force the players to deviate from your intended adventure in response to these unscripted random encounters. Random flash floods can occur during a draught, hail and thunder storms can be experienced during a summer. If an area is known to be plagued by a specific creature type, then show them this in your random encounters. If a road is traveled by merchants, have your players meet some on the open road or come across a gang of highway bandits. These are all examples of things that could add to your story's side plots, and not take away from the main story itself.
I think the last on is wrong but fixed by what you said if you get a player to roll for something it should always succeed to some extent they don't have to succeed in the way they intended but there has to be a reward or else making them roll interrupts the flow with nothing to gain
Personally I like allowing anyone who wishes to roll for certain pieces of information; specifically those that are important so that they have a reasonable chance of getting it and then I get to tie how they learned that into their backstory If they all fail, I can introduce the information otherwise
I allow multiple players to roll at a time.but they have to be for different skills and the information gained would be different depending kn what skill wins
The second one I wouldn’t say is ironclad. In fact I would generally disagree. If it’s information relevant to the party as a whole, and the party as a whole is present, it makes more sense for everyone to roll. Only have the relevant player roll when they’re alone, only they are investigating that particular thing, or it is only strictly being given to them. I also had something in the last where they party found some very important documents that showed a different language and text to every person watching depending on their languages known, for them to find a way to dispel that on it eventually and be able to actually read it. It was great the amount of rp mileage I got out of it though as the party started talking about what was actually written on it :D
One thing I heard that I kinda agree with more, specifically relating to the last one, if theres like no chance of success just don't have your players role at all. If its a no even on a nat 20, that's just disappointing for the players cause the answer is gonna be no regardless, so just don't have them role.
I think if u get a nat 20 you should always get what u want so maybe you meet a pirate and ask for his ship he laughes and laughs till he falls over the ship and drowns because his peg leg got stuck
Or letting the caricature that DM is playing kill a man blamed it on someone else then allowed him to die by basically never telling use what his name or what he looks like and he still changed what he looks like and picked a caricature that looks the same
What i have done with two players doing the same skill check is that if one rolls higher (and makes the DC) and the other is the primary . The primary gains a small bonus. I want to note that I dont do this on ALL skills just some of them. An example of this is a Use Computer check (Star Wars Saga Edition) or a strength check but these are pretty rare in my games
If no roll of the dice gives success, then no dice should be thrown. If someone attempts the impossible, then they should simply fail. Allowing them to roll only sets them up for disappointment and causes arguments
Idk for that pirate giving you his ship on a Nat 20 roll I would honestly only allow it if the captain rolled like a nat well only a nat 1 on deception
If i remember correctly a Nat 20 or a 1 doesnt mean a pass or a fail. The only time a 20 really matters is in a Constitution check (i think) and a Life Saving throw (this i know). When our DM told us we were shocked and a little betrayed
I lock only unnecessary answers behind checks. I love to see the players be like:„Aw man, I wish I knew where that hooded figure went in that dungeon battle. What mistake I'm doing is putting too much trust into my players. Last session, they were traveling a lot on horseback. Sure there was the occasional rest stop or an encounter, but I told them that this is their opportunity to roleplay. Let's see some interesting interactions between the characters. The fighter wanted to keep his past a secret, the Sorceress, who was the only one who knew what that strange artifact they found is capable of outside of just glowing. And the Bard tried playing a song on a ukulele after these few questions. The fighter rolled high to shoot an arrow through it's handle to make her shut up. (Not aiming to harm her of course) Maybe it's a side effects of the players still being new and a little shy, but what should I do about it? If anything.
Imma disagree on number 2. I can often create nuances between the multiple roles. Give different pieces of the same puzzel. Such as, say a perception check in a library. The person who rolled at 17 will find an important book to the plot, and the 20 will find a hidden chest. I find it doing so can encourage teamwork
🎉 CLARIFICATION 🎉 I don't tell my players to roll checks they can't succeed (I assumed that was so obviously a bad idea that I didn't need to state it outright but judging by recent comments more clarification is needed 😅) In this video, I'm referring to situations where PLAYERS ask to make a check (if you run games where players aren't allowed to initiate checks, more power to you, this just won't be relevant to your table). If my players ask to make a persuasion check, I let them make it, because they would rather find out for themselves what is possible and what is not. If a failure would result in dire consequences, I will advise against it, but otherwise I'll let it happen - it'll take literally a few seconds, result in a moment of fun roleplay, and avoids me breaking player immersion.
Practice makes perfect, make those xp for trying.
Thank You, finally someone said it Nat20 didn't mean you can do anything you want and Nat1 didn't always means instant death.
If there is no chance of it happening don't let it be rolled.
One of my friends got a net 20 when trying to kick in a iron door. The dm say there is a littel dent in the door. We were really upset becaus we got so hyped. We argued and he changed it. Afterward he said that he just should have us roll for it so we wouldn't expect something to happen . He also said the reason why he didn't want us to kick in the door was because he was scared to go of the pre written adventure and improvise and that he lerned to not be scared of improvising.
So the moral was to only alow rolls that have a change of success or be very clear befor that the roll is only to give them an advantage. Don't do rolls just for a disadvantage. It's about fun.
@@AMK650 But your dm handled that nat 20 perfectly! Leaving a dent in the door is an amazing feat of physical prowess! Nat 20= best possible outcome.
It's a lot worse to say "you kick the door and nothing happens" even without a roll that's just a lot more disappointing wouldn't you agree? There's no way a DM is letting you dent a pure metal door without a roll.
You guys complained for no reason at all! Even if it ended with the dm learning to rely more on improv.
That's why you make the task DC40.
@@carriedthunder3883
1) DC 40 is not hard to attain my level 6 bard did it three checks in a row and convinced a dragon to allow her to attempt surgery on it
Which is why
2) If you are asking for a check, it is possible, it may be insanely hard, but using a Dhampir swords bard, with enough cannon fodder people around, a single player can end up with a +1000 (very niche but theoretically possible) or more to a skill check RAW, no homebrew involved; under no circumstances should you be able to look at someone and say you’re 1,000 failed.
Don’t ask for a skill check they can’t pass.
@@aronsvanlaugsson5338 exactly very well put
My rule is that a nat 20 always benefits the party even if it doesn’t succeed. So with the pirate captain, he’d laugh it off and say” you got ambition, that’s an admirable quality, I think we’ll get along quite well” this way they have improved there relations with the pirate rather then just not dying
"You funny guy. I kill you last."
This. I think a nat20 should be interpreted as "you get the best _realistic_ outcome."
@@YourXavier yes fr
In my first campaign I was very guilty of the 'nat 20 means you can do whatever' problem, so once a player rolled jokingly asked the shopkeep they had met twice in marriage as a joke and rolled a 20 and she said yes! Funny enough it was one of the most wholesome and nice romantic relationships in our games to this day, and their daughter became a PC in a later game!
I actually did this in my very first campaign as a player. My character was a bard, and being a bard I asked the literal first person in the first town to marry me, rolled a Nat 20 and we got married. We even had custom artwork made for her, which is still somewhere on my pc
I then proceeded to play their child in a future campaign.
@@Explosions_Guythat’s actually hilarious 😭 nat20 rizz i suppose
@@Explosions_Guy How is that so wholesome?
@@Neoanshothey mean the later aftermath of the nat 20
@@ena3na384 I know
For the last one I always use the social interactions system in the DMG. It categorizes npcs into three different types. Friendly, neutral and hostile. Based on that the players can achieve things like "the npc gets into a great risk to help the party", to "the npc helps them if it does not involve any risk for him" for friendly npcs. Or from "The npc helps the group as long no risk is involved" to "the npc opposes the group, even if it involves risks."
This way a Nat 20 won't get you very far, depending on the npc you are talking to
My first time as a GM is next week. (11 year veteran player)
This was really helpful.
Wish me luck.
How was it man?
@@benjapizarro981 *starts to go thru PTSD moments...chaos...an hour of how do you get a horse on an airship...attacking the captain who was just an innocent man* ...
Went about as planned. Will continue.
@@EndGameLooter9715 I'm going through the exact opposite situation lol. I'm about 5 sessions into my first game and I'm running my first campaign in less than a month 😅
I wonder how it went?
@@ryan6402 im with you
RUclips Shorts has a wonderful habit of cutting off the last second of videos, even if they're well below 60 seconds 😅 The last word was "overboard", for anyone who missed it!
And here I am thinking it always is an artistic choice…
Uh, for tge locking info behind skill checks, i normally only lock troop numbers or positioning behind that info. Usually if a raid is happening, and my players are conducting it, they want numbers and placement because they're very combat focused. I never hide plot behind checks that cannot be found out with successful interrogation.
When I absolutely want to make sure the players know something, I let multiple players get a check against two DCs ~ a low DC that most would pass, and a high DC that one would pass.
I'd tell the entire party the basics of what they needed to know with the low DC, then add useful info to the high DC, so that the player who got the high roll decides what to do with that info.
Same but most of my checks are for flavour text regardless
Kind of reminds me of the idea roll in Call of Cthulhu. If players get stuck, they can roll intelligence to get a hint as to what they are missing. They will get the hint no matter the results, but a bad roll might determine that they get the information too late to prevent some kind of bad thing, or the bad guys are tipped off to them, or some other negative consequence.
See I just do this based on the rolls players make- if it's a low rolling session, I'll probably let something happen with a 10+ to some extent. If I need to lower AC so we can have something happen in combat, I'll lower it and say, "by some miracle it actually hits this time" if it's like 1-3 lower than the AC.
I have ways to make sure but still let them feel good about it. When it comes to puzzles, I kind of just never plan solutions, and let my players do stuff until they come up with something that seems like it would work. Crazy, huh?
I like to rely on passive skill checks myself. A naturally charming, seductive, or imposing character (imposing also being applied to physically appearance aka strength for a barbarian) would realistically get a response from people. If it's merited, I would roll myself to see just how much information they would get.
Nothing worse than your players getting stuck with no leads simply because they've rolled bad and now the town's folk haven't taken to them.
And then the whole party fails both checks, even the low DC check 😂🤣😂🤣
The third one is important - couse there are a LOTS of DMs that handle social encounters (or social rolls more) very poorly.
Multiple paths to everything is always a great idea, even though it’s extremely hard to write for. A perfect example would be the original deus ex or system shock games, because the immersive sim was mastered in the 90’s
For number 2, that's literally what the help action is.
One thing you can also do for the first one is give out a small portion of the information for free and have a check give out an extra tip or hint so that the players can still progress if they fail, but can earn an edge of they succeed.
What my dm does is give us the necessary info no matter what but the higher the skill check the more extra info we get
This is all super solid advice, some of which I specifically could have used 30 minutes ago. Added to my mental notes! Thank you!
That last one can be fun.
If you're a dm you should def ask your players if they want it as an option...but also make sure to tell them that makes their nat 1's just as ridiculus ;)
When having multiple players do skill checks, one thing you can do is try to narrate the skill check as a group effort.
One very common misconception is that nat 20's are a guaranteed success. This only applies in combat and nowhere else. Rolling a nat 20 is you gave your absolute best but sometimes, even your absolute best isn't enough. You aren't going to convince a devout religious person, who has been that way their entire life to give up their religion on a nat 20. Much less the guiding principles of their entire life. That boulder is literally 40 tons, you may have rolled a 25 but it isn't going to move. Impossible skill checks are a good thing to have. If your players have a problem with them, you need to explain this to them. Just try your best to not use them as a selfish DM.
Yeah absolutely, that was very much the thrust of Point 3 in the vid - sometimes a Nat 20 isn't going to do it for you, or it'll just give you the least bad outcome.
I think with multiple nat 20s in a row and a good few in insight with the rest in persuasion you could. That's why sometimes I have players do multiple skill checks for something that may be particularly hard. Instead of using one skill check to move the 40t boulder I just have them roll multiple times if they want to, potentially getting injured on poor enough rolls.
The funnies/most dick move thing I've had happen was when the barbarian was trying to jump and reach some broken stairs in a tower and he rolled a one. I then proceeded to have him roll a dex save. He managed to only grab with one hand and the brick came loose. He barely failed the save, so I had him take some bludgeoning damage as he raised his hands to protect his face and the brick smashed into them. It would have been way worse if it actually hit him.
Everyone plays dnd differently. If they want Nat 20s to auto succeed they can, because it’s fun
One of my DMs uses a little homebrew rule: group ability checks. Basically, you give the party a check with DC of 60 or above and have everyone in the party roll. You add all the rolls together, and if it reaches the DC, it's a success.
I disagree whole heartedly on impossible skill checks cus that kills the purpose of the check instead just tell them they can roll again. A 40 ton boulder needs to move but they u dotn want them to then dont give em a skill check u do that and u say there is a chance they can get it out of the way. U could say nat 20 gets rolled then say “ok a rock slide starts and a bunch of rocks and mud and water wash down the mountain u all rush out of the way just in time and it knocks the boulder down the mountain freeing up the entrance to the tunnel for your party to enter” thats the outcome u could give because obviously no one person in the party would move a 40 ton boulder or ask everyone else to roll and see if they all got 20 too but not all of them. I would say the first 3 need to roll 20 then the other two or the other 3 got to roll 16 and higher or something (cus the more people are trying to move it the easier it will be to move) and that could be A way to handle it. Or say they roll 20 the first guy and “the boulder moves an inch” and they have to keep rolling 20’s to get to move enough inches to open the tunnel or whatever they needed the boulder to be moved for
I’m gonna try DMing myself for the first time this year and this is greatly needed. I’m working out the campaign and don’t even have session 0 full planes out yet. All I know is what year it is, what’s going on, and what the people look like. But this will definitely help for later on.
As a new DM myself, I've learned a few things. I love offering small bits of advice to fellow storytellers :D
First of all-- you've probably heard this already, but your players will _always_ derail what you have in mind. Maybe not in huge ways, and it's your prerogative to steer them back on the right track, but always keep in mind that you may need to do a certain amount of improv. Remember: they aren't behind the screen, so they don't know where you want them to go. A little bit of railroading is okay if the plot demands it, but it's fun to RP some off-script shenanigans.
Second, I've found that giving each player their own Session Zero is amazing in helping them realize who they're playing as. It gives you the chance to run a simple session, spread your DM wings and throw simple enemies at one player rather than four or five all at once.
Third, help your players feel like they belong in this new world. Let them write their own backstory, and then take some time (as much as you need) to ask yourself: where would this happen? For example, one of my friends is playing a Goliath Ranger. She noted that her character would've grown up in a harsh, cold climate, so I found a region in the north where her village could've thrived (Goliaths are less nomadic in my world), and then gave that village a rich history. Basically, make that backstory matter. Weave the one who killed your Rogue's parents into the story as a mini-boss, revisit the monastery where your Monk trained. Perhaps your Fighter has a rival back home, vying for a position of power. Take a few sessions to steer the Fighter into a confrontation with their rival.
Finally, take care of yourself. DMing is a huge undertaking, and it can be easy to be overwhelmed. If you need to, tell your party you just need a break every once in a while. Most likely, they'll understand. If they give you a hard time, well... strike their character with lightning. (jk. Mostly.)
And then just have fun! Sorry if that was overwhelming, I get overeager sometimes 😅
@@josefzalusky7307 that ending bit of striking my characters with lightning reminds me of a little story. A punny story. Because every time one of the other players said any type of pun, he’d be struck with lightning. This happened *9 different times!* but because he was the barbarian, he never took enough damage to be lethal.
For once I already know these ones. Very common mistakes. I love this DM professor.
Sounds like someone’s been at it with the super hexafluoride again
For the multiple players rolling for the same check, though this mainly goes for observation based checks, have the one who threw the lowest roll point something out to the rest who rolled and they simply see more than the lowest roll as they had something pointed out to them instead of looking for it on their own
The Pirate captain might find you amusing and could be willing to take you aboard his crew if you do some tasks for him instead of just giving you the ship.
Making different ways to get the same info also allows different players to be useful and make sure nobody is left doing nothing.
When searching a room, the Rogue could have a lock to pick and get a note with info in it. Meanwhile the Spellcasters of the group can try different spells to get informations or detect clues, whilst the Druid can obtain (limited) information from local animals (rats or even a caged bird).
That's one exemple.
I mean on the pirate example, 20 means they let you steer, 30 means they're willing to sell, 40 means they get starstruck.
On a nat 20 id have the pirate captain have them make an offer, but the offer had better be fair otherwiseit might blow up in their faces big time. Offering a few thousand might actually get you a ship, offering a couple hundred might get you tied up in the brig
Excellent advice, and I agree. I only allow dice rolls determine the outcome of a “choose your adventure. IE. Slight of Hand and may get caught, and on a fail the guards come or the bartender kicks you out of his tavern.
Fell for #3 in my very first time running a campaign and TWICE had a player talk the enemies out of combat, lucky double 20 for them, bad luck and game for the rest of the players
I feel that you can lock info behind skill checks. Just give them a differing amount of info. Such as
Low roll: You find a badly damaged letter you can make out the words contact, lieutenant, and next.
Mid roll: You find a note, it says. We have gotten in contact with Lieutenant Bob.
High roll: You find a document that shows that lieutenant Bob has been helping the cult.
Something I learned from playing Call of Cthulhu, if you do lock important story things behind a skill check. Should they fail the check, instead of just wall blocking them or allowing them to try again later, have the story info or item come to them without their efforts with unforeseen consequences tied to it.
An example: The party might have missed out on getting a story item from a dungeon, they leave unaware of its existence with their loot. Instead another adventurer or thief (or something similarily appropriate) finds it after they've left the dungeon, except the story villain(s) catch them in the act. The would be thief escapes capture just long enough to pass the item off on the party hoping to keep it away from the BBEG or possibly pass blame and get away safely. Either way the party now has the item, except the villain(s) are super aware of this and start putting out wanted posters for their arrest or sending assassins and other minions to attempt to take the item from them. Where as if they had successfully found it on their own, the villain(s) might still be unaware the party's existence.
I’ve shifted my players over from all trying to make the same check to taking the help action to give one of them advantage if it makes sense that they could. No thunder stolen, and they still get to improve their odds of success.
Its always important to keep in mind that a nat20 is not an automatic success of everything they're trying to do. A nat20 is the best possible outcome within the circumstances. As an exaggerated example, your player is falling from somewhere high and wants to roll to see if they can fly (they obviously cannot) but they roll a nat20... well, they can grab a hold of a branch and lessen the damage. Obviously tailor it to what makes sense.
#1 can also be fixed by writing it so you're giving info no matter what but success gives more or clearer intel.
The easiest way around the first problem is using the Failing Forward tactic. If you’re locking vital information behind one skill check, make sure that they get the information no matter what. “Then why roll”? To see what the information costs them, whether it be time, tipping off their enemies to their presence, gold, or something more precious (like the life of an NPC).
A lot of it comes to play style for me. Personally I’d like to tell as good of a story as possible, and that means that nat 20s will always be a success, just maybe not in the way they intended. In that pirate scenario, I probably would have had the captain offer the pc an apprenticeship to earn the boat in a few months time when he retires. The player will likely say no, but it was still a “success”.
My DM used to give characters advantage on checks when another character tried to help. This gave us the advantage without stealing the thunder. 😎
I agree wholeheartedly with the 2nd one. There are so many times where as a low int character rolling high for once getting undercut by someone who is proficient because the DM asks for party rolls. Just ask the party for one roll
Underrated guidance
Two rolls at the same time can be pretty funny. Like one friend rolled for perception to see if the beggar was lying and the other rolled as well. One was successful and the other one wasn't. Fortunately the one who wasn't had better convincing skills, so after all everyone thought the beggar said the truth.
Another possible way is to let them roll blind.
I got some background npc's they players can interact with after each adventure, and they will tell them what they missed, and helps them out in lots of other ways. However they have no bearing on the party during adventures. Thus creating a library esque research hub so they can find things they missed.
The way I handle multiple players rolling for a check is I give them all different info based on how high they rolled. That way if 2 characters both rolled above the DC, I can give them both different info that they can share with each other.
Pirate captain will absolutely give his ship on a nat 20. The players might find out later that his crew aren't loyal at all and the position is more of a curse.
Had one of my Players try to convince the Necromancer they were going up against to give up his ways and not take revenge on the kingdom that ruined his family with no reason as to why and asked to roll for it. This is one of the few times I said no because it doesn't logically make sense for someone with that much rage to just stop because some random kid says he should without any sort of reason or backing too it.
Definitely have learned the first way to well. Now I give out the needed knowledge without checks, and give checks for additional helpful info.
When multiple people roll for the same check, it's basically rolling without being asked to roll, so just give the same answer
The only rule I've really broke if these is the roll 20 thing. But my campaigns are generally a little less serious. Not completely ridiculous but a little absurd so I usually make some fun shit up for a good nat 20, simply for rule of cool.
Had the info thing happened to my group once.
DM was running a small pre-made campaign.
Out party ended up completely missing one of the most important pieces of information by just by just not succeeding in getting it.
That caused a chain reaction of us missing every other consecutive piece of information, because without the initial knowledge we simply didnt know we were even looking for them.
Ended up getting the worst ending by just not getting that first piece.
About the "giving the party advantage" thing: With 4 dice, it's more likely than not that one of them will roll at least 17. With 5 it's 18, with 7 it's 19, and with 14 it's 20.
Three easy fixes for a DM
1) Use passives more, insight, perception, investigation, etc
Try using this before they search the room, or if they look like their having trouble, or ask them to be specific where they are searching. If they get a nat 20 while searching the cupboards, they would naturally miss things on the ground.
2) Make a group DC, or ask if the player wants to give the other player advantage as they essentially took the help action. Everybody wins, or fails.
3) Yea, no, he's right on this one. People aren't just going to hand over their possessions just because you rolled high, at least not without compensation.
I played a level 20 short campaign where the DM believed in the DMG reccomendation that 30+ be the DC for something nearly impossible.
I played a totally busted bard/fighter/ranger/paladin halfling, whose minimum roll for persuasion was 37(which I could bump up to 42 as a bonus action for 10 minutes)+1d4.
He hated me by the end. He gave me a curse from a beyond godlike entity that makes everyone hate me, so al the DCs were much higher. Which I got rid off by convincing another godlike entity to take the curse for me by rolling a Nat20 hitting a total of 55.
I like to think I taught him a good lesson. I ended up convincing 4 god's to worship me...
Great tips!
One thing i do-
In cases of letting multiple ppl roll for the same check, i then make it a group check requiring a minimum number of success.
It doesnt help with the under cutting anothers roll but i find it helps to prevent players rolling till they get it
Regarding number 3, I often see on DnD stories people are like "I'm so mad my players killed my bbeg in one roll because they rolled a 23 in persuasion when they told him to jump off the cliff! D:". Ok, but like, why did you make that succeed? The high roll should have a positive outcome for them, sure, but why not, as you said, let the villain be amused by it and instead of attempting to execute them, offer them a deal instead, like "hmhm, I won't be jumping off that cliff, but I do have other places to be, that is true. I'm off for now, but if you change your mind and want to work for me, you know where to call."
It would be cool if the pirate says “if one of you can beat me in a fist fight I’ll take you where you need to go” on a nat 20 lol
Depending on the circumstances of course, Ill allow players to 'help' the expert, by also rolling but halving the helpers check and adding it to the primary check.
My own DM with checks usually gives us multiple opportunities depending on the time between them, he won't let us perform the check again until after a day or 2 worths of in-game time, even then that would need us to travel back to that area, deal with encounters, yadda,yadda
Don't let your players roll if there's no chance of success period. If they are asking for something unreasonable, tell them so. Have them rephrase it or work with them to change their interaction.
or let them get other benefits outta that roll, like they now created an opportunity for a second roll or other benefits adjusted to the situation
I love how u pointed out how a nat 20 doesn't automatically mean u succeed, it still has alot to do with the situation, alot of ppl seem to have that misconception.
If you can't do something with critical success then it shouldn't have been a roll in my opinion, but hey it's a game play how you and your party want. We like to play if you get nat 20 you did the thing you where trying to do. 😀
Good idea for the multi checks issue, start out with allowing someone with the relevant skills, knowledge, or background make a check. Like a fighter with a soldier background sees a uniform different from the rest, his background makes sense as he would know the general gist of ranks and stuff. However if he fails, allow others to make multi checks and give him a vague answer. So the flow of the sorry should go something like this:
The Soldier sees a trim dressed man with gold braids on his shoulder being saluted. *Rolls 8 insight*
Soldier: He's a higher rank then private but I can't be sure from this angle. Maybe a lieutenant or second lieutenant?
*Party Rolls to find out more, Barbarian gets a 19*
Barbarian: That's person gots a star on his shoulder.
Soldier: ah so it must be a general
When it comes to multiple people rolling for a skill check, my DM mostly only allows 2 people to make the check cuz it's basically the other person giving the help action, but he let's us choose to have 1 of the players roll with advantage or both can roll normally. That is unless it makes sense for everybody to roll for something, like for searching for someone actively hiding from us, or climbing a cliff, or something like that. Tho I know he does do a special thing where very niche information can only be rolled for by people with proficiency in a certain skill, like History or Arcana checks on very specific things
Homie got that 1600's jaw
Got that Charles II of Spain aesthetic
Tying the first one and last one together, keep in mind that success and failure can come in varying degrees. Failing a skill check to open a heavy door doesn't need to mean the door doesn't open. It can mean that it opens at an otherwise avoidable cost, such as whomever opened it pulling a muscle in the process and sustaining a minor injury, either resulting in minor damage or disadvantage on certain throws in the future. It could also be something more roleplay specific, such as making themselves look like an idiot or something in the process. "You open the heavy door, but the straining from the attempt resulted in your pants ripping, exposing your bottom to everyone." Obviously in ways befitting your playgroup. Or instead of a minor punishment for failing, a minor reward for succeeding. Easier if done for roleplay purposes, such as getting to show off. "As you lift the door, your muscles ripple slightly, then the door raises. To everyone watching, despite the door looking to weigh several tons, you seem capable of lifting it as though it were no heavier than a pebble." Even if its not a roleplay heavy group, such a thing could even give the party member a bonus like an inspiration die.
As for tasks with impossible goals the party is aiming for, I love the idea of success meaning "you don't get punished for being stupid" instead of "impossible thing happens." The bard asked the king to just hand over the kingdom and rolled a nat 20? Have the king jokingly play along. "Sure, you can have the crown, the responsibility of finding ways to keep this kingdom safe, and even take my wife. I'll go out there, earning money by having fun playing instruments, wooing women, sleeping around with whomever I want, and having the freedom to do as I please." Or something like that. Or maybe give them a bonus for making the NPC laugh at their ridiculous suggestion, like they reward them with a little more gold after a quest or something. Just make them a little more agreeable in general. And failure doesn't have to mean death either. It can mean a minor punishment like missing out on some quest rewards for pissing the NPC off, or banishment from an area (if it isn't needed for your story, of course), or just making a new, minor enemy (more someone that will annoy and hinder them than actually be a threat). Or if your players are good sports about it, then they just made themselves a new BBEG for a bit, because that king took the bard's demand as a threat to himself and the kingdom and now sees the bard, and by extent the party, as potential usurpers. Only if there's a believable reason and your players won't hate you.
In either case, failure doesn't always need to be complete and success doesn't always grant the impossible.
All great advice as always! Looking forward for the next vid!
For group skill checks I often let my players roll a d6 each. Then, depending on the situation, the summary has to beat the DC. Or like in a random event deception check: 1, something bad happens
2-5, nothing happens
6, something good happens
1 and 6, mostly a fight or puzzle happens but with a good reward, like items, information, mini quest triggers.
Actually they have advantage on that check by having more than one person with the needed skill. Let them work together.
I would make it a rule that a group can only have 1 player check in a conversation, but I will allow a different check by the other players. For example if a player fails an insight check, someone else can roll intimidation.
For those that want their players to know something but want to add challenge, make it where the research or task is for how long will it take. Then add a threat to the time.
My system to roll for information is pretty complicated. I'll have multiple ways to get information and different information for different skill checks and different DCs for each. I use a Pass/Fail DC Range for skill checks especially for information with no crits. I also have the PC Background and Class influence the DC and award situational advantage on info checks. This generally means the players have 2-4 ways of getting pieces of a puzzle that they come back together in RP to build a plan.
I use skill checks all the time, my players know that a nat 20 doesn't mean what they want will always happen but will give them the best possible outcome. A nat 20 on the pirate he tells you let go to my cabin and talk, from there who knows but you at least got him to consider talking about it instead of just walking the plank. One of my players about 6 years ago was playing a wizard and during what I thought was going to end as a tpk that wizard was the only one to live now it's a npc who comes by in every campaign we play as a ghost but will only talk to 1 PC during the campaign and help nudge things in a way so the information needed of missed out on is found, he typically talks to whoever is the meat shield. so the meat shield will ask the party "umm can someone help me read this book I like the how this word looks it's funny" actual quote from our barbarian. I have made the mistakes and had to tweak things to make it work and after 6 years seldomly do I need to fix things now like this and my 8 players know and laugh when I say " I need a tobacco break" right after a question or action it means take 5 I need fresh air and a few minutes to figure this out. 6 years 12 campaigns 1 world and 12 time periods in this world. they have built kingdoms in it just to visit it later to see what happened to it in the next.
I have a very important rule that I follow:
I always, always, give my players a "Win" each session. Maybe they're fighting weaker enemies than usual, maybe they unlock a piece of information, maybe they get the upper hand on an opponent (physically, mentally or politically), but I give them the opportunity to be Heroic and Succeed at Something each session.
Nobody likes to be kicked around all the time. Nobody wants to have their character feel powerless and "just there as a punching bag" all of the time. Yes, there are defeats and challenges, and some challenges are just too great to overcome (maybe forever, maybe just for now)... but...
Give. Them. Something.
You can lock a peice of information behind a check if it isn't absolutely necessary.
I only lock some information allowing alternate endings or sooner endings
Yes - I like to have the skill check providing a short cut to knowledge. Also a high int player should be able to maybe use a mind palace and go back to a room from childhood where a tiny bit of info is available - eg a pattern or old language was in a book studied many years back but the player knows just the empires name - this provides bonuses to investigation and time spent with intelegence and research can break through the problem
On the topic of mistakes ive made as a dm...
Once i had a smart player who knows how to use spells for weird effects. I was running a modern game and they stumbled upon a bank robbery, only for the player to cast heat metal on the extended magazine of the gun one robber used mid-heist... needless to say, that npc no longer has hands.
Regarding the last: Id allow it IF the players can come up with a good reason (Like stressig they work for his boss....and have enough' knowlesge to Back this Up.....and succed on the following checks everytime they have to lie while interacting with the crew.
I would say for me personally (keep in mind i have sadly never finished a campaign, thee single campaign i was in was hardly like vanilla dnd and was just more a story with dice roles in think. And thirdly i have never been a dm) but i would say when it comes to gaining info a skill check and then two separate ways to bribe the npc seems like the best way to not do this. Makes sense considering the world dnd is set in (vanilla)
This why I always use the "help" action when one of my party members do anything outside of combat. Always getting advantage.
People like you are the reason why there is no help action at my table outside of initiative order. Its either a group check or a single person check.
I made it a ac check to cut open a beholder to get a piece of a magical sword
This guy looks like a Habsburg monarch.
Failing forward also can alleviate the first one.
So, they fail the check to get the info, but they need the info to progress the plot? Give them the information they need, but at a cost. It takes longer if they're on a timeline, or an NPC demands a massive bribe, or they only get part of the info they need (like they find a burned scrap of paper with a keyword, but that has none of the context).
“The Captain finds your words amusing and doesn’t immediately throw you overboard” is success. You should never ask your player to roll if success of no king is on the table. That’s a forgone conclusion at best & vindictive DMing at worst. Instead, expand your idea of what success means. Do the same for failure. Be willing to let the results of the roll be something different from the obvious ones the players expect
One thing I’ve seen a DM due for when two characters roll high on the same check is giving them different information that makes sense for their character to know.
Don't lock outcomes behind a rolled skill check.
Use passive skill checks where possible when a character's stats would logically allow it.
For example, an inherently strong character should not need to roll a skill check when lifting something heavy such as a barrel full of mead. A weaker character lifting the same object on the other hand, would obviously have a harder time doing so, so they'll need to roll a skill check.
A highly perceptive character would easy notice a strange smell in the air, this could be sweet perfume, freshly baked pastries, dung, or a decaying corpse. Roll a skill check for them to find the actual source, not for noticing it in the first place.
And most importantly
1) do not have them roll to see if that special someone or something that they must interactive with is actually there. Keep all randomised events/outcomes to non essential interactions only.
2) for all random events rolled, be it enemy encounters, today's weather, or traveling NPCs, keep the results grounded. Don't have a power creature such as a black dragon suddenly appear and attack your players if it's not related to the story. Don't have a beautiful summers day turn into a heavy blizzard unless it's actually being caused by something that relates to the story. And don't have them meet some random refugee fleeing a war torn nation on the open road, especially if there's no wars or raids taking place in nearby regions.
Any and all of these "random" events could either result in players losing interest in the story itself, cause needless PC deaths, or force the players to deviate from your intended adventure in response to these unscripted random encounters.
Random flash floods can occur during a draught, hail and thunder storms can be experienced during a summer. If an area is known to be plagued by a specific creature type, then show them this in your random encounters. If a road is traveled by merchants, have your players meet some on the open road or come across a gang of highway bandits.
These are all examples of things that could add to your story's side plots, and not take away from the main story itself.
thanks. this will be a lot of help
Glad you found the video useful, mate! 👊
I once gave a player a kingdom for a nat 1. I regret nothing.
You just showed up mate, keep it up, I really enjoy your perspective.
I think the last on is wrong but fixed by what you said if you get a player to roll for something it should always succeed to some extent they don't have to succeed in the way they intended but there has to be a reward or else making them roll interrupts the flow with nothing to gain
Personally I like allowing anyone who wishes to roll for certain pieces of information; specifically those that are important so that they have a reasonable chance of getting it and then I get to tie how they learned that into their backstory
If they all fail, I can introduce the information otherwise
I allow multiple players to roll at a time.but they have to be for different skills and the information gained would be different depending kn what skill wins
The second one I wouldn’t say is ironclad. In fact I would generally disagree. If it’s information relevant to the party as a whole, and the party as a whole is present, it makes more sense for everyone to roll. Only have the relevant player roll when they’re alone, only they are investigating that particular thing, or it is only strictly being given to them. I also had something in the last where they party found some very important documents that showed a different language and text to every person watching depending on their languages known, for them to find a way to dispel that on it eventually and be able to actually read it. It was great the amount of rp mileage I got out of it though as the party started talking about what was actually written on it :D
I usually let my players do whatever and then I improvise.
Nah the captain lets you keep your stuff as your thrown overboard. By the way he's still laughing.
One thing I heard that I kinda agree with more, specifically relating to the last one, if theres like no chance of success just don't have your players role at all. If its a no even on a nat 20, that's just disappointing for the players cause the answer is gonna be no regardless, so just don't have them role.
I think if u get a nat 20 you should always get what u want so maybe you meet a pirate and ask for his ship he laughes and laughs till he falls over the ship and drowns because his peg leg got stuck
I'd have the captain negotiate a lower transit price instead.
Or letting the caricature that DM is playing kill a man blamed it on someone else then allowed him to die by basically never telling use what his name or what he looks like and he still changed what he looks like and picked a caricature that looks the same
What i have done with two players doing the same skill check is that if one rolls higher (and makes the DC) and the other is the primary . The primary gains a small bonus.
I want to note that I dont do this on ALL skills just some of them. An example of this is a Use Computer check (Star Wars Saga Edition) or a strength check but these are pretty rare in my games
If no roll of the dice gives success, then no dice should be thrown. If someone attempts the impossible, then they should simply fail. Allowing them to roll only sets them up for disappointment and causes arguments
Yeah, adventures should be constructed in a way that they can be finished with a 1 on every skill roll.
Idk for that pirate giving you his ship on a Nat 20 roll I would honestly only allow it if the captain rolled like a nat well only a nat 1 on deception
If i remember correctly a Nat 20 or a 1 doesnt mean a pass or a fail. The only time a 20 really matters is in a Constitution check (i think) and a Life Saving throw (this i know). When our DM told us we were shocked and a little betrayed
I lock only unnecessary answers behind checks. I love to see the players be like:„Aw man, I wish I knew where that hooded figure went in that dungeon battle.
What mistake I'm doing is putting too much trust into my players. Last session, they were traveling a lot on horseback. Sure there was the occasional rest stop or an encounter, but I told them that this is their opportunity to roleplay. Let's see some interesting interactions between the characters.
The fighter wanted to keep his past a secret, the Sorceress, who was the only one who knew what that strange artifact they found is capable of outside of just glowing.
And the Bard tried playing a song on a ukulele after these few questions. The fighter rolled high to shoot an arrow through it's handle to make her shut up. (Not aiming to harm her of course)
Maybe it's a side effects of the players still being new and a little shy, but what should I do about it? If anything.
Imma disagree on number 2. I can often create nuances between the multiple roles. Give different pieces of the same puzzel. Such as, say a perception check in a library. The person who rolled at 17 will find an important book to the plot, and the 20 will find a hidden chest. I find it doing so can encourage teamwork
Sometimes I say skill check just too see if a nat 1 happens.