Your reference about "stagnant protagonist" in writing really struck home with me; I plead guilty! Keep hammering the basics. You never know when something will cause the "duh, never thought of that but it makes sense" response to another person. Like me, all too regularly. Keep it up!
I came to the conclusion that there 3 questions that you need to answer in order to be good role player: 1) What would my character feel, say, or do in this situation? 2) How will my decisions/actions affect my party? 3) How can I include my party in what I want and what I am doing? If you can answer these 3 questions, then it doesn't matter if you can change your voice, accent, posture, have props, etc. With these 3 questions answered, you are a good role player.
I have a character who is learning who she is. This adventure is the first time in her life when she hasn’t had someone telling her what to do, who to be, or how the world works. And she was just told that someone she loved and trusted very much, was actually a terrible person. So she’s left believing that most of her life was a lie, but not totally believing that, and she’s very confused. Recently, in game, she tried to share some helpful facts with the party. She wanted to let them know that the eye of a dangerous npc may be on them. But in the process she accidentally revealed that she had been working for him, (at least for a short time), and lost the trust of the person she had told this secret. He straight up told me, “You know I can’t trust you anymore right?” That wasn’t a dice roll. She straight up believes now that because she tried opening up to someone good, that she’s damaged her reputation. And now she’s resolved to keep as much to herself as possible, even if it’s detrimental. So far, her character arc is going down hill, and I’m absolutely loving it. I built the person she loved and trusted in her past to be a mentor, and father figure. And I’ve already decided that if he comes back into her life, then she will side with him against the party. (I did talk to the dm about this too. 👀)
I feel like I’m such a basic player. I play a human ranger, basic, who’s a cartographer to pay the bills and gives me a good excuse to want to go to these uncharted places. Backstory is I came from a small town to the north and my family does business with the local giants. Why I can speak giant. And that’s literally it. My only character motivation is to protect my fellow PC, a half elf Druid, on our adventures as I make maps. I’m basically a slightly nerdy Aragorn. lol
Don't forget: sometimes, the a characters role is to influence other characters in the right direction! Even if that's just by being a steady influence
@@PlayYourRole hey good point. Thanks, I don’t feel so lame now. Yea I absolutely love the story telling and role playing elements that D&D provides but personally as a player I just want to roll dice and hang out with my friends. Both of them. lol
@@foxtoxic9722 I would argue that the best part of this story *is* the supporting pc's! Skydieray 134 if the link doesn't work. The story is the one about "clypeus, angel of the three coins". ruclips.net/video/GTHR2_BJdkM/видео.html
That's a pretty reasonable basis for a character. One way to give them a little more depth is to introduce some form of long term goal for them. For example, do they want to become a world famous cartographer by mapping increasingly remote and dangerous areas? Find new markets and expand the family business? Win the heart of a certain half elf Druid and convince them to settle down and raise twenty kids together? (Obviously that last one requires buy in from the other player.) Goals, dreams and aspirations are what make a character interesting. It allows us to root for them and become invested in their story.
Excellent point about letting the GM in on your vision for what the character might become. As a gamemaster, I'll tailor encounters and introduce elements into the setting or the npcs that riff off of anything the players have made known to me. Sometimes that's drawing from their backstory, but it's just as important to think about where you're intent on going as it is to consider where you came from. If the GM doesn't know what the players are looking for in terms of their own character arc or evolution, then what you get is a plot that is built only from the GM's ideas, which may or may not provide much opportunity to draw out the types of story moments or character growth that a player is (secretly) hoping for. Whether you've got an arc in mind when you start a character or not, a player may also find some unanticipated development that happens in the game, which becomes a new motivation for them, either setting new goals or simply changing their perspective on something significant that changes how they behave afterward. If it isn't made obvious when it happens in the game, that's another thing worth mentioning at the end of a session, during a break, or as an out-of-game comment in the moment, just to let the GM in on the impact the story is having on your character's outlook. The antithesis of this theme of open communication is the temptation to keep secrets like precious treasures which you can unveil dramatically at a climactic moment. I can relate to the impulse, but I think you're way more likely to find that dramatic moment if the GM is aware that you're looking for the chance.
So much this. I think you're really right to highlight this aspect of the video as it circles back again to that collective storytelling idea. And I couldn't agree more on the secrets part. I feel like streamed games have made them look particularly appealing, because they have very high payoff for the audience - but in a home game the temptation to preciously guard those nuggets can actually impede working together on the story.
If you don't have the time to learn what your spells do, don't take a spell caster. (Bard casting sleep in the middle of our badly injured 1st level party.)
@@johncasebeer179 reminds me of the time when i dm'ed a group and had a suprise owlbear encounter. it fucked up the two marshal and both were on low health, and the bard cast sleep the owlbear, but since it immune to charmed, the two marshall fell alseep instead. I just decided the owl bear would attack the other party members. Cause that would be a real quick tpk.
Good video. There are a lot of great "good player tips" videos out there, but this one sums up the essentials quite nicely. Here are my own expectations for players if they want to enhance the experience for both other players and the DM. 1. Don't just sit there. Participate actively. 2. Communicate clearly and repeatedly (both in-game and IRL). 3. Don't just narrate what your character does, act it out once in a while.
Really good story-driven advice! I feel like I've watched too many of those 'how to be better' videos and have fatigue by now, but these are three nice points that put the focus on the big picture, which I think is really useful.
I've only had one character that simply existed in the world. They were a Firbolg Druid (Circle of Stars) who operated as an agent of the cosmos. Someone who I heavily RP'd wisdom from, who saw the gods as nothing more than work colleagues. And in one of the highlights of the campaign, he talked down to an angered god that showed up to punish one of their party members. And he made enough sense to them to the point where they walked away, said "I've decided not to disintegrate you.", to which I instantly and calmly responded "You were never going to. And that's okay.". DM had a real doozy trying to figure out his goals. He was slightly annoyed because he was convinced I was hiding some ulterior motive
I really like the point you make about having your character be invested in the other players characters. As a relatively new player I'm noticing I'm just doing my thing and I rarely interact with the other characters unless I need something from them like an item or knowledge, but I never have had my character just interact with them because of something interesting they're doing, believe in or be appreciative or condescending about the skills they may or may not have. I will try to incorporate that more in the next sessions.
That last part hit home so hard. I have played in a small number of groups, and it's important to be friends towards each other and not play it like you're the only character that matters. Some groups i play in, understand this naturally and we have an absolute blast. Other groups just had a number of people in it that just ruined the fun, mostly due to selfcentered behaviour, or miserable communication..
Ironically the best character I’ve ever played was when I decided screw it and made a character with no idea where I wanted them to end up. They were already a war vet working a meaningless traveling job for the empire he lived in, they’d been an npc in someone else’s BBEG battle and had suffered the trauma of what adventuring brings upon the regular folk. He started out neutral good but by the end I’d say his intentions were lawful evil even if his actions hadn’t quite sunk there, through my bad roles, the predestined adventure set out for the party and the incompetence he saw in his own government he slowly became a disillusioned anarchist bent on overthrowing the gods and the empire, to establish true free will amongst his fellow humanoids
On your player on player advice I have been doing that subconsciously since my first character. It's always great to have a single connection (positive or negative) towards each member of the party
Currently playing a half elf wizard necromancer trying to bring back her friend, whom she killed in an arcane accident, at the cost of destroying everything that gets in her way to bring back Vivian (the dead friend). It's only sess 3, and I've been told by my DM that I'm the only person with a backstory. Hell, some of the players don't even know what they're own characters look like, and are there solely for combat, not roleplay.
Fun fact about me, when I first make a character, I search the net endlessly for a fitting picture representing my character, then I search for relatable gifs, pics, memes and all for my new character just in case I need to make my point out of session in out telegram group. And lastly, my characters always have a hidden agenda of protecting the party. Because they are my irl friends and why would any character I make harm them?
Right now im playing a very different character. Chaotic evil lizardfolk and he is an absolutely dispicable creature. And ive been doing really good because in my party even the other evil characters dont like me and neither do most of the npcs. So intentions are coming through so far.
Just be aware playing CE characters is very hit or miss. Because if you're antagonising everyone around, if there's ever a time where you're downed your party might just stick a dagger rather than a healing potion in your throat. Making everyone hate you isn't necessarily role-playing a character well
@@Samfew343 It isnt so much im making them its more that my character isnt concerned. Who likes who is too petty and a waste of energy and it is a side effect of that mentality. And depending on who your playing making everyone hate you is playing very well.
"we all play D&D to feel cool, to have a good time, to be the main character" .... what? This main character thing surprises me, I didn't think it was a common goal for players to be the main character, since it doesn't... really make any sense, unless you're the only player besides the DM. Which makes you main character automatically unless your DM is really terrible so it's not a goal, it's a fact. Good tips though, now I see just how much having a planned character arc at all is important
It is entirely possible to have multiple main characters. E.g. The Avengers. The problems come when the characters are all motivated towards diverging plots. And even then, you can trade off arcs.
Every character is the "main character" in their own story. The key is remembering that there are other people at the table, playing their characters and creating their stories. Just as an example, from the POV of one of my players, my current campaign is a love story. It is a tale of a young Elf running from an arranged marriage and finding her true love in a land of darkness. From the POV of another, it's the story of a Dwarf's quest to bring the wonder that is Dwarven ale to the benighted Human civilisations. Yet another sees it as a quest to bring the light of knowledge to those shrouded in the darkness of ignorance (and to inform the world of said quest via the publication of somewhat sensationalised accounts of the party's adventures).
I get the "everyone is MC from their own point of view" thing, but since D&D is a coop game, you have to work together... Much like the Avengers indeed, Caleb. It is also true that not having diverging arcs can help a lot, the party I'm DMing for currently is suffering from having selfish characters that have diverging objectives except for one (that will likely lead 2 of them to fight each other) and that's chaos. Maybe I just didn't understand well what "main character" meant cause to me it sounded like "most dnd players actively seek to act as the sole main character of the story, by directly taking the lead every time possible and giving orders or treating it like a roleplaying competition in which the goal is to have the most compelling arc and to be the one that did the most important things" Would you say your players are acting like they try to be the main character of the overall story, or are those visions only in regards to their own arc and they know how to let others shine, Nick?
@@percussiveseer415 Yeah, that's just how a main character acts in a bad power fantasy. Go to far in this direction with sufficient enabling from the rest of the story and you have yourself a Mary Sue. Now, people are usually playing DnD for the power fantasy, but to be a compelling narrative, it should be about protagonists who have the wherewithal to consistently live out their inspiring (or at least interesting) ideals. [Though there's nothing stopping you from playing a sort of side or supporting character, if carrying that kind of narrative weight doesn't seem feasible or enjoyable. Nor is there anything stopping a character from transitioning between the two.] And if you do just want to give your players a more indulgent type power fantasy, you still need at least enough cooperation to not get be getting your kicks at the expense of other players. Otherwise it's a power fantasy for a one or a few people and a degradation/frustration purgatory for everyone else. (Or technically a hell, since there isn't really anything good that necessarily comes of it.)
@@percussiveseer415 The latter, of course. I'm blessed with an awesome group of players, most of whom I've known for a couple of decades. The big caveat to "every character is the main character of their own story" is that the campaign follows the adventures of _the party:_ players are required to create and play characters who want to adventure with the party and who would be welcome in it. If a PC does something that results in them being booted from the party or leaves the party of their own accord ... well, the story stops following that character. As for your impending PvP issues ... good luck. It's really going to depend upon your players as to whether it works out. Some players love that shit. Some players hate it. Just remember, there's no law against sitting down with your players (as a group or individually) and asking them how they6 think the campaign is going and where they're thinking of taking it. If both players are on board with bringing things to a head and someone having to roll up a new PC, go for it. If the conflict is unintentional, suggest ways the PCs can back off from their opposition.
I make sure everything about my character makes sense. From their class, race, to even how they act. It doesn't matter to me if paladin is a stronger class than ranger. If it makes more sense for my character to be a ranger, they're gonna he a ranger. I put combat second, rp first.
I clicked the video to see what you were printing... loved my ender, sold it to a co-worker and got the CR-10v2, now I have 2 of the bastard things running 24/7 and still can't find anyone to play Pathfinder/3.5 with. >:(
I made an elitist dwarf wizard who believed everyone was beneath him and that he was superior to all other non wizards. He didn't really change since he proved it every session. With booming blade and a battle ax he did consistent good damage in melee. With abjuration magic nothing could really "hurt" him. Couldn't heal people, but abjuration wizards can intercept damage with their ward so party didn't really ever need to be healed. I didn't like this character since I wanted him to be humbled at one point and not be such an ass to everyone he meets but it never happened. I will likely never play a wizard ever again.
that character sounds like an awesome villain though. Like one you just love to hate because they're constantly trash talking you, but they have the skillset to back it up lol. Mind if I use this concept in my upcoming campaign?
I want to take a moment here to emphatically disagree with a quick phrase you spoke around the 4:30 mark, in which you state that the players should understand that the DM is in control of the story. This is certainly not at all true for every D&D table, and I would argue ought not to be the case. The DM may have a story in mind, a particular narrative they are trying to express, but the effectiveness of that expression is entirely contingent on the players' choices at the table. I think a good DM is well aware of that, and will react by adjusting their narrative to the actions of the characters, thereby the will of the players. I believe the ability to do so shows imagination and a willingness to forego their intended story line in favor of something that everyone at the table can have a hand in. I think a poor decision by a DM would be to double down on the story they are trying to perform, and I use the word 'perform' deliberately, because once you remove the players' influence in controlling the story being told, that is the moment you lose collaborative story telling and start performing a story for your players within which they have characters. As a player, it's the difference between being told what your character's goals ought to be, as opposed to forming your character's goals based on what has been presented to them. The DM controls what is being presented to the characters, the characters control what they do with that information. The process of pairing these two influences is what creates the collaborative story being told. All that said, based on the previous videos I've watched of yours, I'm going to assume that you did not mean the DM has sole control over the story, and this was simply a turn of phrase that just hit me wrong in the moment. After all, the entire first segment of this video is in conflict with that statement, being about players communicating their desires for their characters to the DM in order to have influence over how the story of the game plays out, asserting their control over the story. I just wanted an objection to the idea that DM's ought to control the story of a D&D game noted. The world and all that lives within it(other than the characters of course), yes. The rules and how they are applied, yes. The story being told at the table? The DM's control extends only to the world that they present, and how the rules are applied to it. Plots and intrigues and goals can be set forth, they are part of the DM's living world, but the willingness of the players to engage their characters with any aspect of these is what determines story. Other than that 5 second clip, I think everything else is spot on. Communicating with your DM about what you want for your character is a sure way to progress those ideas in game, taking note of the characters the other players present and finding aspects of them that interest your character is a sure way to achieve character interplay during sessions, and setting goals for your character in game and how you as a player would like see your character develop makes game play that much more fulfilling when these things happen. I think all these are great ideas for enjoying the game, and fostering other player's enjoyment. Well done, Caleb. I'll catchya on the next one.
By rules, DM controls most of the game. It goes up to eschewing rules of the game in favor of his own rules or his judgement. If a DM wants, he can definitely force a story on the players, or stymie players efforts to change it. That is because the rules of the game, including the spells and the feats, serve him, not the other way around. So, it the end, DM does control the story regardless of what ought to be.
@@kogorun I do not argue against the fact that the DM controls most of the game. As stated in the original comment, a DM has control over the created world and all that lives within it(excluding the players' characters) and also controls how the rules of the game relate to that world. My argument is with the assumption that a DM controls the story being played out. I can't speak for you, but I will say that I would not want to take part in a role playing game where the role I am playing, and the decisions I am putting forward as the character I am playing, has no influence on the collaborative story being played out at the table. I mean, saying the DM controls the story, regardless of player contribution to it, defeats the fundamental purpose of a Role playing game, which is for a player to enact a role to play out a situation. If the role has no influence on the situation, if the situation proceeds irrespective of the role the player is playing, then you're not playing a role playing game anymore. Collaborative story telling no longer exists in that condition. In short, the point is a DM has a responsibility to the players to ensure their characters' actions are handled fairly in the game environment, which necessarily forms a partnership of control for the story and how it progresses between the DM and the players. If a DM fails to handle the player characters' actions fairly, removes the players' influence over how the story is being created, then I don't see how that's not a breach of good gamesmanship, how it's not just bad DM'ing, period. As far as spells and feats go, I would argue they serve to enforce the players' will over the story every bit as much as a DM's, assuming the DM is handling such spells and feats consistently in the game world. I guess the bottom line would be this, a DM's responsibility is to their players, and not to whatever plot line the DM is attempting to play out at the moment. To say the players do not have control over their characters' stories is to remove the DM's accountability to their players, to say that they have no responsibility to ensure that the player characters have any role to play in the developing story. If that's what's happening at the table, how can that possibly be called a role playing game? At that point it's just story time, featuring DM so-and-so as your narrator. The assumption is that players are there to play a role, not stand by and watch as their character is forcibly shuttled off through encounters in furtherance of the DM's idea for how the story should be played out.
Jfc learn how to properly build a paragraph kid; I’m not reading that cacophony of nonsense, and i don’t have to in order to know that it’s nothing but you not know the role of Player or DM. The DM does ALL the hardwork. *ALL OF IT.* I’m sorry if rolling dice and role playing are any sort of difficult for you
@@skelitonking117 I get it, man. Its a lot of text. Anything over 280 characters gets to be a bit much for some people these days. Maybe that's not you, or I could just write don't blame me for your laziness and leave it at that, but that's assuming you weren't busy at the moment you saw the comment and didn't have the time to get through it. Maybe the wall of text was just too intimidating to even consider. Maybe you only had the time available to comment on something you hadn't bothered to read, thinking that you somehow already knew what was contained therein by proximity? I don't know, you weren't entirely clear on that point. The only clarification you made was that you didn't appreciate the structure used, followed by a statement that clearly indicated you hadn't bothered to read the comment. But hey, I'm a generous guy. Here's an accommodation; I'll give you a tldr, followed by a couple of the requested paragraphs. TLDR: DM's present the game world, apply the ruleset to it, and adjudicate how those rules are handled during play. The Players play roles, and their choices influence the story of the game. Therefore it is incorrect to say the DM is in control of the story, as removing the players' role in influencing the story means that you are no longer playing a role playing game. I think that was around 360 or so characters, but hopefully that was concise enough to be read. Its not as supported or nuanced as the original argument, but sacrifices need to be made to fit the suggested parameters, I suppose. And, to reply to your comment, I agree. DM's do all of the hard work. I wrote as much in the comment you refused to read. They even have to keep in mind that they may need to adjust their narrative or plot dependent on how their players decide to move forward, which means they may, and often do, prepare for situations that never occur during game play. Finally, to assuage any sorrow you may feel, my fingers are still nimble enough to roll dice and my imagination is still sharp enough to play a role in a collaborative story with friends. There are no difficulties in those regards to worry about. If you made it this far, thank you and congratulations on getting here. Its more than I have any right to expect, and I'm grateful you took the time.
Play Your Role and Bob World Builder really deserve to become more influential in the D&D community.
This 👆
I genuinely appreciate that, I can only hope to keep making helpful videos!
This is true.
Is it just me, or is XP to Level 3 overhyped? I watched a couple of videos and didn’t get into it.
Just my opinion.
@@rcschmidt668 I wouldn't say it's over hyped. It has a style, usually not my cup of tea, but I can see why someone would like it.
Your reference about "stagnant protagonist" in writing really struck home with me; I plead guilty!
Keep hammering the basics. You never know when something will cause the "duh, never thought of that but it makes sense" response to another person. Like me, all too regularly.
Keep it up!
lol same
Sometimes an outside perspective is all you need! Thanks for watching!
I came to the conclusion that there 3 questions that you need to answer in order to be good role player:
1) What would my character feel, say, or do in this situation?
2) How will my decisions/actions affect my party?
3) How can I include my party in what I want and what I am doing?
If you can answer these 3 questions, then it doesn't matter if you can change your voice, accent, posture, have props, etc. With these 3 questions answered, you are a good role player.
I have a character who is learning who she is. This adventure is the first time in her life when she hasn’t had someone telling her what to do, who to be, or how the world works. And she was just told that someone she loved and trusted very much, was actually a terrible person. So she’s left believing that most of her life was a lie, but not totally believing that, and she’s very confused.
Recently, in game, she tried to share some helpful facts with the party. She wanted to let them know that the eye of a dangerous npc may be on them. But in the process she accidentally revealed that she had been working for him, (at least for a short time), and lost the trust of the person she had told this secret. He straight up told me, “You know I can’t trust you anymore right?”
That wasn’t a dice roll. She straight up believes now that because she tried opening up to someone good, that she’s damaged her reputation. And now she’s resolved to keep as much to herself as possible, even if it’s detrimental. So far, her character arc is going down hill, and I’m absolutely loving it. I built the person she loved and trusted in her past to be a mentor, and father figure. And I’ve already decided that if he comes back into her life, then she will side with him against the party. (I did talk to the dm about this too. 👀)
I feel like I’m such a basic player. I play a human ranger, basic, who’s a cartographer to pay the bills and gives me a good excuse to want to go to these uncharted places. Backstory is I came from a small town to the north and my family does business with the local giants. Why I can speak giant. And that’s literally it. My only character motivation is to protect my fellow PC, a half elf Druid, on our adventures as I make maps. I’m basically a slightly nerdy Aragorn. lol
Don't forget: sometimes, the a characters role is to influence other characters in the right direction! Even if that's just by being a steady influence
@@PlayYourRole hey good point. Thanks, I don’t feel so lame now. Yea I absolutely love the story telling and role playing elements that D&D provides but personally as a player I just want to roll dice and hang out with my friends. Both of them. lol
@@foxtoxic9722 I would argue that the best part of this story *is* the supporting pc's! Skydieray 134 if the link doesn't work. The story is the one about "clypeus, angel of the three coins".
ruclips.net/video/GTHR2_BJdkM/видео.html
That's a pretty reasonable basis for a character. One way to give them a little more depth is to introduce some form of long term goal for them. For example, do they want to become a world famous cartographer by mapping increasingly remote and dangerous areas? Find new markets and expand the family business? Win the heart of a certain half elf Druid and convince them to settle down and raise twenty kids together? (Obviously that last one requires buy in from the other player.) Goals, dreams and aspirations are what make a character interesting. It allows us to root for them and become invested in their story.
I saw my own video!!!!
Watch them and you will be over 9000 times better!
Happy to see you in there! You're awesome!
Hey, it's Rip-Daddy!
Excellent point about letting the GM in on your vision for what the character might become. As a gamemaster, I'll tailor encounters and introduce elements into the setting or the npcs that riff off of anything the players have made known to me. Sometimes that's drawing from their backstory, but it's just as important to think about where you're intent on going as it is to consider where you came from. If the GM doesn't know what the players are looking for in terms of their own character arc or evolution, then what you get is a plot that is built only from the GM's ideas, which may or may not provide much opportunity to draw out the types of story moments or character growth that a player is (secretly) hoping for.
Whether you've got an arc in mind when you start a character or not, a player may also find some unanticipated development that happens in the game, which becomes a new motivation for them, either setting new goals or simply changing their perspective on something significant that changes how they behave afterward. If it isn't made obvious when it happens in the game, that's another thing worth mentioning at the end of a session, during a break, or as an out-of-game comment in the moment, just to let the GM in on the impact the story is having on your character's outlook.
The antithesis of this theme of open communication is the temptation to keep secrets like precious treasures which you can unveil dramatically at a climactic moment. I can relate to the impulse, but I think you're way more likely to find that dramatic moment if the GM is aware that you're looking for the chance.
So much this. I think you're really right to highlight this aspect of the video as it circles back again to that collective storytelling idea. And I couldn't agree more on the secrets part. I feel like streamed games have made them look particularly appealing, because they have very high payoff for the audience - but in a home game the temptation to preciously guard those nuggets can actually impede working together on the story.
Knowing what your spells do. It really keep s things moving...
If you don't have the time to learn what your spells do, don't take a spell caster. (Bard casting sleep in the middle of our badly injured 1st level party.)
@@johncasebeer179 reminds me of the time when i dm'ed a group and had a suprise owlbear encounter. it fucked up the two marshal and both were on low health, and the bard cast sleep the owlbear, but since it immune to charmed, the two marshall fell alseep instead. I just decided the owl bear would attack the other party members. Cause that would be a real quick tpk.
Good video. There are a lot of great "good player tips" videos out there, but this one sums up the essentials quite nicely.
Here are my own expectations for players if they want to enhance the experience for both other players and the DM.
1. Don't just sit there. Participate actively.
2. Communicate clearly and repeatedly (both in-game and IRL).
3. Don't just narrate what your character does, act it out once in a while.
Sending this to a veteran player as a way to help out a few newbies at the table
Hopefully I was able to help!
Really good story-driven advice! I feel like I've watched too many of those 'how to be better' videos and have fatigue by now, but these are three nice points that put the focus on the big picture, which I think is really useful.
I've only had one character that simply existed in the world. They were a Firbolg Druid (Circle of Stars) who operated as an agent of the cosmos. Someone who I heavily RP'd wisdom from, who saw the gods as nothing more than work colleagues. And in one of the highlights of the campaign, he talked down to an angered god that showed up to punish one of their party members. And he made enough sense to them to the point where they walked away, said "I've decided not to disintegrate you.", to which I instantly and calmly responded "You were never going to. And that's okay.".
DM had a real doozy trying to figure out his goals. He was slightly annoyed because he was convinced I was hiding some ulterior motive
I really like the point you make about having your character be invested in the other players characters. As a relatively new player I'm noticing I'm just doing my thing and I rarely interact with the other characters unless I need something from them like an item or knowledge, but I never have had my character just interact with them because of something interesting they're doing, believe in or be appreciative or condescending about the skills they may or may not have. I will try to incorporate that more in the next sessions.
That last part hit home so hard. I have played in a small number of groups, and it's important to be friends towards each other and not play it like you're the only character that matters.
Some groups i play in, understand this naturally and we have an absolute blast.
Other groups just had a number of people in it that just ruined the fun, mostly due to selfcentered behaviour, or miserable communication..
Ironically the best character I’ve ever played was when I decided screw it and made a character with no idea where I wanted them to end up. They were already a war vet working a meaningless traveling job for the empire he lived in, they’d been an npc in someone else’s BBEG battle and had suffered the trauma of what adventuring brings upon the regular folk. He started out neutral good but by the end I’d say his intentions were lawful evil even if his actions hadn’t quite sunk there, through my bad roles, the predestined adventure set out for the party and the incompetence he saw in his own government he slowly became a disillusioned anarchist bent on overthrowing the gods and the empire, to establish true free will amongst his fellow humanoids
On your player on player advice I have been doing that subconsciously since my first character. It's always great to have a single connection (positive or negative) towards each member of the party
Something I've learned about being a player is remembering I'm NOT the main character the main character is the GROUP itself
This is the best advice I have ever seen on this topic.
I love each and every one of these videos
Loving the content, like your style. :)
man i love ur vids
Thank you! I'm so glad that you enjoyed
Lots of good points. Thanks
Currently playing a half elf wizard necromancer trying to bring back her friend, whom she killed in an arcane accident, at the cost of destroying everything that gets in her way to bring back Vivian (the dead friend). It's only sess 3, and I've been told by my DM that I'm the only person with a backstory. Hell, some of the players don't even know what they're own characters look like, and are there solely for combat, not roleplay.
Fun fact about me, when I first make a character, I search the net endlessly for a fitting picture representing my character, then I search for relatable gifs, pics, memes and all for my new character just in case I need to make my point out of session in out telegram group. And lastly, my characters always have a hidden agenda of protecting the party. Because they are my irl friends and why would any character I make harm them?
Thanks.
Right now im playing a very different character. Chaotic evil lizardfolk and he is an absolutely dispicable creature. And ive been doing really good because in my party even the other evil characters dont like me and neither do most of the npcs. So intentions are coming through so far.
Just be aware playing CE characters is very hit or miss. Because if you're antagonising everyone around, if there's ever a time where you're downed your party might just stick a dagger rather than a healing potion in your throat. Making everyone hate you isn't necessarily role-playing a character well
@@Samfew343 It isnt so much im making them its more that my character isnt concerned. Who likes who is too petty and a waste of energy and it is a side effect of that mentality. And depending on who your playing making everyone hate you is playing very well.
engagement
engagement 2 electric bogaloo
I'm not ready for engagement yet, maybe we'll just hang out for a few videos first... ok?
YES YES! OF COURSE YES! I THOUGHT YOU WOULD NEVER ASK!
hi Beansmith!
"we all play D&D to feel cool, to have a good time, to be the main character" .... what? This main character thing surprises me, I didn't think it was a common goal for players to be the main character, since it doesn't... really make any sense, unless you're the only player besides the DM. Which makes you main character automatically unless your DM is really terrible so it's not a goal, it's a fact.
Good tips though, now I see just how much having a planned character arc at all is important
It is entirely possible to have multiple main characters. E.g. The Avengers.
The problems come when the characters are all motivated towards diverging plots. And even then, you can trade off arcs.
Every character is the "main character" in their own story. The key is remembering that there are other people at the table, playing their characters and creating their stories.
Just as an example, from the POV of one of my players, my current campaign is a love story. It is a tale of a young Elf running from an arranged marriage and finding her true love in a land of darkness. From the POV of another, it's the story of a Dwarf's quest to bring the wonder that is Dwarven ale to the benighted Human civilisations. Yet another sees it as a quest to bring the light of knowledge to those shrouded in the darkness of ignorance (and to inform the world of said quest via the publication of somewhat sensationalised accounts of the party's adventures).
I get the "everyone is MC from their own point of view" thing, but since D&D is a coop game, you have to work together... Much like the Avengers indeed, Caleb. It is also true that not having diverging arcs can help a lot, the party I'm DMing for currently is suffering from having selfish characters that have diverging objectives except for one (that will likely lead 2 of them to fight each other) and that's chaos.
Maybe I just didn't understand well what "main character" meant cause to me it sounded like "most dnd players actively seek to act as the sole main character of the story, by directly taking the lead every time possible and giving orders or treating it like a roleplaying competition in which the goal is to have the most compelling arc and to be the one that did the most important things"
Would you say your players are acting like they try to be the main character of the overall story, or are those visions only in regards to their own arc and they know how to let others shine, Nick?
@@percussiveseer415 Yeah, that's just how a main character acts in a bad power fantasy. Go to far in this direction with sufficient enabling from the rest of the story and you have yourself a Mary Sue.
Now, people are usually playing DnD for the power fantasy, but to be a compelling narrative, it should be about protagonists who have the wherewithal to consistently live out their inspiring (or at least interesting) ideals. [Though there's nothing stopping you from playing a sort of side or supporting character, if carrying that kind of narrative weight doesn't seem feasible or enjoyable. Nor is there anything stopping a character from transitioning between the two.]
And if you do just want to give your players a more indulgent type power fantasy, you still need at least enough cooperation to not get be getting your kicks at the expense of other players. Otherwise it's a power fantasy for a one or a few people and a degradation/frustration purgatory for everyone else. (Or technically a hell, since there isn't really anything good that necessarily comes of it.)
@@percussiveseer415 The latter, of course. I'm blessed with an awesome group of players, most of whom I've known for a couple of decades.
The big caveat to "every character is the main character of their own story" is that the campaign follows the adventures of _the party:_ players are required to create and play characters who want to adventure with the party and who would be welcome in it. If a PC does something that results in them being booted from the party or leaves the party of their own accord ... well, the story stops following that character.
As for your impending PvP issues ... good luck. It's really going to depend upon your players as to whether it works out. Some players love that shit. Some players hate it.
Just remember, there's no law against sitting down with your players (as a group or individually) and asking them how they6 think the campaign is going and where they're thinking of taking it. If both players are on board with bringing things to a head and someone having to roll up a new PC, go for it. If the conflict is unintentional, suggest ways the PCs can back off from their opposition.
I make sure everything about my character makes sense.
From their class, race, to even how they act.
It doesn't matter to me if paladin is a stronger class than ranger. If it makes more sense for my character to be a ranger, they're gonna he a ranger.
I put combat second, rp first.
I believe you said character about 43 times in the whole video 😜 (any inaccuracies I blame on my dog lol)
Hmm. Isn't the 2nd part of the video where you care about the other characters really like the bond section of the background but expanded upon?.
I clicked the video to see what you were printing...
loved my ender, sold it to a co-worker and got the CR-10v2, now I have 2 of the bastard things running 24/7 and still can't find anyone to play Pathfinder/3.5 with. >:(
Come on man, it's what my character would do.
Main point: Care about others
The printer gives me anxiety lol, had to listen to this without video. To each their own I guess.
I hate when yall say, "trust" in pretty much every context
I made an elitist dwarf wizard who believed everyone was beneath him and that he was superior to all other non wizards. He didn't really change since he proved it every session. With booming blade and a battle ax he did consistent good damage in melee. With abjuration magic nothing could really "hurt" him. Couldn't heal people, but abjuration wizards can intercept damage with their ward so party didn't really ever need to be healed. I didn't like this character since I wanted him to be humbled at one point and not be such an ass to everyone he meets but it never happened. I will likely never play a wizard ever again.
To be 100% fair, it feels like it would be hard to follow up playing another Wizard after that sooooo
@@PlayYourRole I'll just stick to my warlocks
that character sounds like an awesome villain though. Like one you just love to hate because they're constantly trash talking you, but they have the skillset to back it up lol. Mind if I use this concept in my upcoming campaign?
@@dragonking184 Sure go right ahead
: )
Love your content, but the printer video is painful to watch.
This is a really good podcast though.
69th comment
I want to take a moment here to emphatically disagree with a quick phrase you spoke around the 4:30 mark, in which you state that the players should understand that the DM is in control of the story. This is certainly not at all true for every D&D table, and I would argue ought not to be the case. The DM may have a story in mind, a particular narrative they are trying to express, but the effectiveness of that expression is entirely contingent on the players' choices at the table. I think a good DM is well aware of that, and will react by adjusting their narrative to the actions of the characters, thereby the will of the players. I believe the ability to do so shows imagination and a willingness to forego their intended story line in favor of something that everyone at the table can have a hand in. I think a poor decision by a DM would be to double down on the story they are trying to perform, and I use the word 'perform' deliberately, because once you remove the players' influence in controlling the story being told, that is the moment you lose collaborative story telling and start performing a story for your players within which they have characters. As a player, it's the difference between being told what your character's goals ought to be, as opposed to forming your character's goals based on what has been presented to them. The DM controls what is being presented to the characters, the characters control what they do with that information. The process of pairing these two influences is what creates the collaborative story being told.
All that said, based on the previous videos I've watched of yours, I'm going to assume that you did not mean the DM has sole control over the story, and this was simply a turn of phrase that just hit me wrong in the moment. After all, the entire first segment of this video is in conflict with that statement, being about players communicating their desires for their characters to the DM in order to have influence over how the story of the game plays out, asserting their control over the story. I just wanted an objection to the idea that DM's ought to control the story of a D&D game noted. The world and all that lives within it(other than the characters of course), yes. The rules and how they are applied, yes. The story being told at the table? The DM's control extends only to the world that they present, and how the rules are applied to it. Plots and intrigues and goals can be set forth, they are part of the DM's living world, but the willingness of the players to engage their characters with any aspect of these is what determines story.
Other than that 5 second clip, I think everything else is spot on. Communicating with your DM about what you want for your character is a sure way to progress those ideas in game, taking note of the characters the other players present and finding aspects of them that interest your character is a sure way to achieve character interplay during sessions, and setting goals for your character in game and how you as a player would like see your character develop makes game play that much more fulfilling when these things happen. I think all these are great ideas for enjoying the game, and fostering other player's enjoyment. Well done, Caleb. I'll catchya on the next one.
By rules, DM controls most of the game. It goes up to eschewing rules of the game in favor of his own rules or his judgement. If a DM wants, he can definitely force a story on the players, or stymie players efforts to change it. That is because the rules of the game, including the spells and the feats, serve him, not the other way around.
So, it the end, DM does control the story regardless of what ought to be.
@@kogorun I do not argue against the fact that the DM controls most of the game. As stated in the original comment, a DM has control over the created world and all that lives within it(excluding the players' characters) and also controls how the rules of the game relate to that world. My argument is with the assumption that a DM controls the story being played out. I can't speak for you, but I will say that I would not want to take part in a role playing game where the role I am playing, and the decisions I am putting forward as the character I am playing, has no influence on the collaborative story being played out at the table. I mean, saying the DM controls the story, regardless of player contribution to it, defeats the fundamental purpose of a Role playing game, which is for a player to enact a role to play out a situation. If the role has no influence on the situation, if the situation proceeds irrespective of the role the player is playing, then you're not playing a role playing game anymore. Collaborative story telling no longer exists in that condition. In short, the point is a DM has a responsibility to the players to ensure their characters' actions are handled fairly in the game environment, which necessarily forms a partnership of control for the story and how it progresses between the DM and the players. If a DM fails to handle the player characters' actions fairly, removes the players' influence over how the story is being created, then I don't see how that's not a breach of good gamesmanship, how it's not just bad DM'ing, period. As far as spells and feats go, I would argue they serve to enforce the players' will over the story every bit as much as a DM's, assuming the DM is handling such spells and feats consistently in the game world. I guess the bottom line would be this, a DM's responsibility is to their players, and not to whatever plot line the DM is attempting to play out at the moment. To say the players do not have control over their characters' stories is to remove the DM's accountability to their players, to say that they have no responsibility to ensure that the player characters have any role to play in the developing story. If that's what's happening at the table, how can that possibly be called a role playing game? At that point it's just story time, featuring DM so-and-so as your narrator. The assumption is that players are there to play a role, not stand by and watch as their character is forcibly shuttled off through encounters in furtherance of the DM's idea for how the story should be played out.
Jfc learn how to properly build a paragraph kid; I’m not reading that cacophony of nonsense, and i don’t have to in order to know that it’s nothing but you not know the role of Player or DM. The DM does ALL the hardwork. *ALL OF IT.*
I’m sorry if rolling dice and role playing are any sort of difficult for you
@@skelitonking117 I get it, man. Its a lot of text. Anything over 280 characters gets to be a bit much for some people these days. Maybe that's not you, or I could just write don't blame me for your laziness and leave it at that, but that's assuming you weren't busy at the moment you saw the comment and didn't have the time to get through it. Maybe the wall of text was just too intimidating to even consider. Maybe you only had the time available to comment on something you hadn't bothered to read, thinking that you somehow already knew what was contained therein by proximity? I don't know, you weren't entirely clear on that point. The only clarification you made was that you didn't appreciate the structure used, followed by a statement that clearly indicated you hadn't bothered to read the comment.
But hey, I'm a generous guy. Here's an accommodation; I'll give you a tldr, followed by a couple of the requested paragraphs.
TLDR: DM's present the game world, apply the ruleset to it, and adjudicate how those rules are handled during play. The Players play roles, and their choices influence the story of the game. Therefore it is incorrect to say the DM is in control of the story, as removing the players' role in influencing the story means that you are no longer playing a role playing game.
I think that was around 360 or so characters, but hopefully that was concise enough to be read. Its not as supported or nuanced as the original argument, but sacrifices need to be made to fit the suggested parameters, I suppose.
And, to reply to your comment, I agree. DM's do all of the hard work. I wrote as much in the comment you refused to read. They even have to keep in mind that they may need to adjust their narrative or plot dependent on how their players decide to move forward, which means they may, and often do, prepare for situations that never occur during game play.
Finally, to assuage any sorrow you may feel, my fingers are still nimble enough to roll dice and my imagination is still sharp enough to play a role in a collaborative story with friends. There are no difficulties in those regards to worry about.
If you made it this far, thank you and congratulations on getting here. Its more than I have any right to expect, and I'm grateful you took the time.