This video makes me feel so much better as a DM. As a person with a lot of anxiety, seeing this video and thinking "This is a regular problem?" Feels good to know my issues are not the norm and my players are really having fun when they say so.
@@badmojo0777 I was new to that city and its friendly local game store - I called ahead the week before to get acquainted with their rules - the only option was PF1 league rules - the DM we talked to said the only game available was level 5 but we could build 5th level characters to join in - my friend and I built characters per these directions - I guess we didn’t do it right by the DM on game day - he was different from the one we talked to the week before - he kind of bodged a solution together for us - all the players were a good bit younger than we were and knew each other well, so they weren’t super into these 25 year olds from out of town - the DM was a good bit older and sort of not interested in accommodating us being new to league play (we played 3.5 and PF1 at home plenty enough to know the rules just not league rules) - he kept cutting us off and targeted my character with an instant death effect which felt sort of targeted at me the player and a bit rough for your first session of league play -I fortunately survived by rolling very high (I think it was a 19 on the dice) - we didn’t feel any malice from the kids just that they weren’t welcoming - it did feel like the DM saw us as a burden - my friend and I left shortly after the game and agreed that wasn’t the table for us
When you wish to adjust rules or ban some items (subclass, spells, etc.) that is what session zero is for. I'm a newer DM (20 sessions), before I invited players I had a document drafted and posted on discord that showed rule changes or some restrictions for players to read, then held a session zero. 2 players decided not to stay in the group because I banned 3 subclasses as written, although I would allow for modifications. Honestly, that is fine, because they enjoyed more of an OP character, where I was looking for more of a challenging campaign. 4 out of the 6 players stated they never had a DM go over restrictions prior to the campaign starting, but found out those restrictions during the campaign. While changes can happen as time goes on, they should be very limited.
As much as it is nice to be upfront with restrictions, it tends to require that you know beforehand that you will need a restriction in a specific place. A lot of the time restrictions come in to handle something that has shown up or looks like it could show up in play, and you do not necessarily know these beforehand. The most important part here is to try and be fair about these things, especially if deception was not employed in some way. This usually means trying to figure out some way to change things up such that it does not affect the players to adversally, at least compared to what they could fairly expect - you do not change one broken thing out with another, but if they were setting up some combo, allow them to change things to normal things that would work if they had not been going for such a combo. The exception here is for deception, where you judge that someone was deliberately trying to deceive you into allowing something broken into the game, in which case one might not want to be as linient in how they would get to change things up. If all else fails, letting them make a new character at similar advancement can often be a reasonable solution if that character could not be salvaged. Generally when people are more honest about such things and not trying to reach for broken things, then I would personally feel much safer allowing things for them, whereas people who seek such things out need to be watched, and as such will not get as much permission for borderline things as the risk of it ending up breaking things would generally be higher.
Session 0 is king. Lay out any and all rules that aren't RAW and obtain your players' consent to those changes. If you need to tweak things during the course of the campaign, have a separate conversation with your players either before or after a session and explain why you want to change something. Most folks tend to be pretty understanding, especially if you have a good reason and can articulate it.
There are a lot of things you can do with changing things on the fly to make it work better. Personally I tend to use a mix of 2 things: 1) When something comes up ingame that needs some kind of ruling or equivalent, then that ruling is implicitly temporary and associated with that specific situation. This ensures that people do not get scared by the potential rammifications of some specific ruling, and that prevents a lot of the rules lawyering that could otherwise come up. 2) Rules changes are generally done outside of the situation and discussed with the players and together with (likely) getting their approval. The point here is to do it outside of a specific situation where the rammifications would be directly advantagious or not to some specific people. This mostly takes out the bias and rules lawyering of such changes, and that makes it much easier to agree on things.
I have to disagree on the Rules Restrictions point. A 'I don't like this', or 'I don't think this is fun', to be a bit more charritable, is a perfectly valid reason to ban a rule from your table. As long as you are being transparent, it's your right as a GM to run your game the way you like to. If 'some players on some tables' don't like that, then they can run their own game or play at a different table. A GM shouldn't be forced to play with rules they don't like. As for 'arbitrary rules', I feel like a lot of people need to get out there and try some other games, specifically some more rules light systems. It's fine to roll with the punches from time to time. Your GM isn't your enemy. You don't need to know how everything around you works at all time. Honestly this kind of feels to me like a 'control freak'-attitude, which apparently is a problem when a GM exhibits it, but if exhibited by a player it isn't a problem, in fact the GM is in the wrong, not the player. Maybe I'm being a little too harsh here, but I feel like the DnD community has both a really weird obsession with RAW and a unfairly hostile attitude towards GMs sometimes. GMs are players too, they deserve to have fun, just like everyone else.
The Rules Lawyer had a good video on Player Entitlement last month. I recommend watching it. I don't think it's entirely a _player_ problem, as I think there's a lot in the actual system that encourages that entitlement. I also think it's a much better idea to use a different system rather than trying to cut away all of the things in 5e that don't fit with your setting and story. There are so many easy-to-learn systems out there that not only fit other settings and styles better, but they're much easier to tweak for the benefit of the players' _and_ GM's enjoyment.
Rules restrictions are okay if they are stated at the start, but if you constantly keep introducing new houserules to make the players fail, they are going to get frustrated.
This is why I play GURPS and not class / level based games. 1) it is far more flexible. 2) the rules are far more clear. 3) there are far less chances for a simple roll of a die to ruin the game. Sure, those still occasionally happen, but it seems easier to me to tweak some stuff to make someone lose an arm rather than their life. Also, it is occasionally hilarious to gimp a PC.
First of all, both players and DMs get to decide the rules. DMs are not better than everyone else despite what some of them think. If I don't like your table because you've introduced so many rule changes that I need to read a 2nd book to know how your pedantic version of "DnD" works, than I don't play your table. If enough players feel that way, you don't have a table either. We need DMs, DMs need players. So you better care what your players think. Enough of this "DM Supremacy" 🗑. If you are going to borrow a set of rules, play those rules. Makes it simple and stops arguments. RAI is more important than RAW. You didnt create the game. You borrowed it. I don't get gow any of you have the balls to completely change the game when you put in 0% effort and are not a good game developer. Good game developers don't come up with dumb house rules like Crit Fumbles....which are legitimately dumb and hurt martials more than casters. Most your bomebrew sucks, isn't well thought out, and mostly comes from ignorance of RAI. Yes, I am entitled to play DND, just like when I bought BG3 I was entitled to a fresh copy that I could play. I can pick my tables, and there are plenty of them locally and Online. I am entitled to the same experience 60% of players say they are entitled to according to polls because RAI is the most popular way to play DnD. Universal rules everyone can grasp and master makes the game better and causes less conflict. Some of you DMs are pedantic as F and feel the need to leave your personal stench on everything you touch. Stick to story homebrew and leave the game physics to the pros is my suggestion. 😊
@007ohboy But, that being said, the DM IS the final arbiter of all rules arguments. Players do need to realize that sometimes they will fudge rolls, sometimes they will make up rules on the spot to avoid the game dragging, and sometimes it is for an important plot point. It is true that you can walk away from the table if you do not like the call a DM mad, but it is also possible to piss off a DM so you are not asked back. I do agree that if you show up at a table and they have a book of house rules, I would just not even start. A book about custom races, classes and world building, I would be fine with.
We Dungeon Masters understand and appreciate Mordenkainen's philosophy - for we, too, must preserve a delicate Balance. ⚖ We must challenge our players sufficiently to keep the game interesting, but must not frustrate them to the point that it stops being fun (Good and Evil in equal measure). We must know when to lay down the Law and when to revel in the Chaos.
Another thing with rules restriction is when they just come out of nowhere. When there is no prior discussion with the player untill the rule comes up it can be very frustrating especially if you've developed features or respurces to the rhe thing being ruled out.
All of these are great tips as DM Timothy helps highlight our shortcomings as DMs to improve upon. The cat reply @6:24 was such a cute, amazing gift! Some of the best cats on the internet, in my humble opinion!
The best tip for not railroading is don't have a specific solution in mind when creating the scenario. Create the problem and motivations and give your players hints to those motivations and the details of the situation they are in and let them come up with a solution.
I like to have "A" solution in mind, because otherwise it feels like players can't actually solve the situation legitimately. If whatever they come up with works, they didn't have to come up with anything. If I have a solution in mind, then I am happy to accept alternatives I didn't think of that'd also work, but to me the first solution is important to know. Mileage varies wildly by DM on that though, and I don't think there's a "right" path, just paths that work for different mindsets.
I started a group recently where we take turns GMing. It's a great group. It's nice to have players understand what the GM has to deal with. When we get rules issues, for the most part we let the session GM make a ruling and check it later.
Great video. I'm surprised that conflicts in play style didn't make the list. I loved the objectivity of doing this from a poll. 50% for adversarial DMs makes a lot of sense but I never would have guessed the number was so high!
It was the DM being overbearing in role playing context: it was a pick up game with 8 players and I was chosen as the face of the party because I had a decent cha. I went to talk to the guy giving us the job asked for all the groups names they were all spread out in the tavern and then I said "I don't know their names we just started like 5 minutes ago" but for some reason he took it as in character and started hounding me and calling me a bad leader for not knowing everyones names and seemed genuinely mad (probably just good roleplay) to make matters worse I just broke up about a week before this so I was still emotionally fragile and was hoping to relax playing some dnd.
RAW brings up an interesting issue for me. If we take it that the entirety of RAW is necessary for the mythical beast called "game balance" then by definition if you're not tracking spell components, exhaustion, the expenses of daily living, then what's the point of worrying about whether or not a specific niche is allowed in the game. This kind of behavior leans towards the Rules Lawyer (vs a Rules Sage) perspective of player types. The flexibility of being the DM is really important. I run bespoke adventures for a table of two. One of the two was unable to make a session so I did a one on one to flesh out some backstory. In the second scene the Legio Lex Talionis, the equivalent of the Inquisition in the setting, and the players backstory is as a civic minded good citizen from a family of tax collectors for the empire. My dialogue was written with him being helpful and interested in not angering an official of the Inquisition when his family is vulnerable to the whims of the emperor. Is that what he did? Nope. He challenged the proceedings at every step. Oi vey! All my work out the window and now it's time to adlib. And this is probably where the issue of railroading comes in. Adlibbing is a skill learned over time and practice and requires a degree of confidence that (lets face it) many young DMs may lack. Yup. That's definitely the wrong hat for you. Good use of props. My nit to pick today is that though grey works with the white undershirt, whatever that rectangular thing is at the V is a visual distraction from your face. Very Old School AD&D player here. Our early basement dwelling sessions were very adversarial, in that we took delight in how difficult the DM could make the adventure. We started our D&D careers not as murder-hobos, but as Oceans 11 looters. We robbed everything and everyone. If we were exploring it was to rob someone. So we ran heist games with high levels of lethality. Combat wasn't the core of the sessions, but rather avoiding traps and guards were what we wanted to do. Grimtooth's traps were an inspiration for us. And I leave you with this: there is no such thing as a Good Fun/Bad Fun dichotomy. Be an adult and if you're not having fun, leave. Don't ruin it for the rest of the people at the table.
The thing about RAW is that the rules are generally going to be flawed, and your biggest obstacle for good game balance and other such topics is those flaws in the rules. The problem is that most GMs do not (yet) have the kind of knowledge and experience needed to do better or fix those flaws --- at least in D&D and for doing it directly. The normal reasonable option for a GM is then to make a local small scale fix of some particular problem that arrise from those flaws together with setting up a social agreement to not try and have either side go too much into the area where those flaws can become a problem. As an example of one of those flaws (asside from specific broken combos), then the core of D&D, the D20 roll is actually quite flawed. One of its main flaws is related to "Bounded Accuracy", which is basically trading one flaw in the 3.x version with another flaw in 5E+, where in the old versions it could happen that the D20 roll got so biased that the hits easily became either almost impossible or way too easy, which "Bounded Accuracy" tried to fix by pushing all the scaling into a much shorter probability area (though still left some ways to escape that, and still cause problems, but now without the system being designed to handle such things), which instead made it such that the amount of power difference it could handle was much smaller and effectively reduced the different levels of competence that one could play with, while also scewing the balance of core power compared to other modifiers.
There were a few issues with a group I played with. First, the DM occasionally let slip an adversarial attitude. He couldn’t balance encounters very well, and would get visibly butthurt when he didn’t get to use certain monster abilities. He would go out of his way to make sure we couldn’t use roleplaying out of combat to avoid encounters altogether, or to do anything clever. When he did get to use certain abilities, you could see a certain amount of glee on his face as it makes the encounter totally pointless, as he would have to bend over backwards to avoid a TPK after inflicting us with some unrecoverable status effects. His encounters would often involve multiple monsters at a very high CR rating (think 2 or 3 at CR 20 and some CR 10s against a party of four level 14s). His descriptions often left out any critical hints or information that one might expect should be readily provided without actively asking about it. “You enter a room” “What do we see?” “Roll a perception check” “Ok, uh, 9” “You don’t see anything of note” “So an empty room?” “As far as you can tell” Later we would find out we missed an important book sitting on a table in plain sight. Enemies with clearly high-value magical equipment would frequently just evaporate after being defeated with no in-universe reason other than he couldn’t be bothered to think about what we could loot. He would also be very stubborn when faced with a disagreement over rules. But probably the worst part was his inability to keep the game on track. Two or three of his friends were always taking shots during the game, constantly on their phones or not paying attention. They would go off on random conversations and constantly be surprised by things like the fire-based monster being immune to fire damage, or generally not knowing anything about how their own characters function. The worst part was when they would join in the drinking and get so sloshed in the middle of an encounter that I would actively have to correct him on what the monsters are even capable of doing (like not being able to use their nuking ability at will to do 12d10 damage…) Spending almost two hours to get through just 4 rounds of combat is not fun.
My pleasure! If anything comes up you can't find advice on, shoot me a message and I'll try and help. Glad to hear it went well and I hope you're still playing strong!!
Two cases I still curse about were related to the DM/GM basically saying "Whatever". The worst one was the time when the GM straight-up rejected any feedback claiming that he just played as the world how he saw fit and didn't care if we liked it. One that I didn't deliberately leave but also didn't go out of my way to stay in when real life intervened, featured making rulings on the spot based on vibes. I never called it "Mom, can I?" but it probably captures why I was uncomfortable with it pretty well; other players didn't have any issues with it.
Although I agree that all of these can be problems, I think that #4 (Rules Restrictions) tends to be both misused and misunderstood. Many rulebooks have sections of rules clearly marked as OPTIONAL (Feats are an example in 5e D&D, or Setting Rules in Savage Worlds such as Creative Combat, Dynamic Backlash, and Fanatics). And many times, players like these optional rules, and will consider them "must haves." I personally know of a case with a new DM who was running for experienced players, and when she told them for 5e, no Feats and no Multiclassing, because she was just learning the rules, they called her a bad DM. Also, "arbitrary" restrictions -- I restricted reptilian races in 5e because my game, set in Rome, had them as the enemy, but it was a secret before we started (a mystery they had to solve as to why these creatures no longer "existed"). If I had told them WHY they couldn't play those races before we started, it would have ruined the plot. So lots of times, we GMs have reasons for what we do, but we can't tell you without spoiling it. This is where players need to trust their GM.
Trust in a DM is very important. It's often a thing we have to earn over time. I feel for the new DM you mentioned, and don't think she (or you with the lizardmen thing) were stepping into bad DM territory at all. Sometimes, explaining that you have a reason but need to keep it quiet for campaign purposes is the best way to head off any player trouble.
The biggest reason for me for not so much leaving games but not even joining them in the first place is DMs with huge laundry lists of really weird house rules, and a subcategory of this, the 'gritty realism' dms who usually have bunch of house rules with the sole focus of making things as unfun as possible and dedicated solely to nerfing player characters.
@@petegiantoften, yes. 5e is a huge comfort down to the point players complain the DM gave them a "deadly" encounter. When next you hear about DMs leaving the, remember that they get no support and loads of punishment while players get a video game experience, stronger with every new book, and even agree with WOTC trying to turn the and ttrpgs far more into video game experiences. The Newest book even goes as far to say "your DMs will hate these options! Fun for players, bad for monsters". What's the point of being a DM if you're unable to run challenging tense combat for the players AND the players just keep receiving more and more unneeded ever more overpowered options and you don't even get a decent addition to the monster manual? All the time God forbid you nerf or limit player options or homebrew a challenge
Always enjoy the videos. They are very well thought out and conveyed. Many thanks! The only game I ever left, was because another player was so disruptive (the husband of the DM).
Biggest reason I left once was the DM's utter unwillingness to tolerate anything that wasn't a compliment. He made some very odd decisions.. taking our rolls away (no explanation, he had no good reason), deciding that one little punch straight up kills a guy (no rolls, no nothing) and ending session there, leaving me concerned with the consequences for a week.. he was unwilling to discuss it with me because, I quote, "you seemed suicidal". =/ I wasn't nor made any reference to this. Worst was him taking an innate class ability away, nerfing it into being useless, because...no reason, again. I could deal with the system of needing to find a trainer and only getting like 2-3 spells when leveling up despite being a Cleric.. and his obsession with making Curse of Strahd "Town of Barovia everyday life Simulator". But the rest really wasn't alright. In fact, discussing any concerns at all was apparently not tolerated whatsoever, something he didn't mention in our session zero. He became unresponsive, visibly annoyed, and basically tells you to "fucking roll with it or fucking leave". Sure, DM gets to decide how they run their games, but... making all sorts of strange choices out of nowhere, that directly affect the players, with no reason or explanation given, and then getting pissy when you ask.. that goes beyond what's acceptable. Easily the worst and most uncooperative DM I've ever had. I was basically forced to leave, while the rest stuck around and cast me aside completely. Some friends. *shakes head*
I will admit my first experience dming I did some railroading and it caused a player to leave. However said player always wanted to do something complicated to the newly defeated boss that left lots of openings in my mind for them to get away and continue. At the end of the campaign, he wanted to lock the two Gods who wanted to take away all free will in an ordinary mortal prison, instead of the Dimension a third more benevolent God was freed from being kept open for the express purpose of sealing them away. I'm pretty sure my refusal to allow this is why he left during the denouement.
For me the wearing the wrong hat and inflexibility are probably the 2 biggest reason to walk. And the way that shows up for me is the game becomes un-fun. And I game to have fun. So if everything is a struggle, not fun, and thinking about spending a day playing just makes me feel bad I am likely to leave the game eventually.
My group fell apart recently because after last session in an RP heavy campaign DM asked us to limit one on one roleplay sessions between player characters, because due to lack of time we've been playing two hour long sessions rather than 3-4 hour long ones and other people at the table are bored. Me and my friend took it to mean that one on one roleplay is now unwelcome at the table and figured that maybe it would be a good idea to just do such scenes privately. Better to have such roleplay unofficially than not have it at all. We started talking with the rest of the group and others liked that idea, too. Then the DM started having second thoughts about the roleplay situation, we've communicated that we started trying to organize ourselves so that campaign pacing can increase and nobody needs to feel bored at the table, so there are options, and then the DM absolutely exploded and ended the campaign. Should we have told them about the idea before talking to the rest of the group? Yeah, absolutely. But the reaction on their end was way too severe I feel. During post fallout discussion it also came to light that absolutely no one was bored at the table while others were doing their roleplay things and the DMs comment came from them thinking we are bored without actually getting any feedback about that being the case.
Sorry to hear about your group implosion. :( Communication, and the ability to keep a calm head when things aren’t going how you expect, are SO key. :(
my group solves many of the problems in this video by not even using a rulebook, and playing entirelly homebrew campaigns. not a single one of us have enough patience to read the rulebooks
Honestly, as far as rules restrictions. I don't care if you don't like how I run my games. Whenever I invite people to play, I always give a list of things that are restricted and/or outright prohibited. There are rules that rules or feats that I simply don't like, because it makes my life as a DM miserable. And I know that the players that usually play with me, would exploit it. So if you don't want to play on my table, don't play. But I always give most of the restrictions even before session 0. There are always people wanting to play. It's very rare when a rule or restriction comes in the middle of the adventure. When it happens, I try to negotiate with the player, but if they are not willing to find a middle ground. They are welcome to walk away without any harsh feeling, from my side at least.
Favoritism has to be at the top of my list followed closely by changing rules on the fly (nerfing character abilities when used, adding abilities to monsters mid combat). This caused me to step away from a game (both). The rest are pet peeves of mine, but never caused me to leave a game. DMs that don't prepare, picking on players, ignores what you say (ignores plans), DMs that attack you before combat starts!!! Oh my gosh, I almost forgot that one! Agreed! Non-sandbox does not mean railroad. Railroading is when you are forced to solve challenges one way and not allowed to brainstorm up you own solution. It can happen in any style of game, even a sandbox. The DM wears about 7 hats. Session 0 is a must!
How do you know when a GM is adding abilities to monsters mid combat / why does that bother you? Adapting scenarios during a session to player choices is a key part of GMing well.
@@hodgepodgesyntaxia2112 - Because I know a dragon doesn't have mindblank or anything similar. He did it so my telepathy ability wouldn't work just to spite me.
@@sleepinggiant4062 okay, but in that example, you don’t know if the change was pre planned or improvised, and the issue is the GM’s perceived malice, not the technique employed. There’s nothing inherently wrong with introducing a monster that’s immune to some character ability to challenge a player in a new way.
@@hodgepodgesyntaxia2112 - I know it was not a preplanned ability because he was surprised and then he said it didn't work. Nothing about the dragon's ability. It had nothing to do with challenging us. We saved the dragon, and when I polymorphed it to get it out of the chamber it was trapped in, it didn't turn into what I shapechanged it into, it chose it's form. The DM was like this frequently. He did it to spite me and have the dragon save face.
@@sleepinggiant4062 you’re not actually critiquing ‘changing rules on the fly.’ You’re just critiquing malice. Without the GM freedom to change and adapt, almost every encounter would be functionally railroaded. The technique is invaluable for running games that are responsive to player choice.
I feel like rules and option bans never bothered me. But I know some players only ever have one character idea at a time, and it might revolve around some specific rule and might struggle. I could play a game where the gm said "everyone has to be a human rogue" and I coukd make enough distinct compliant characters for a party. And that's a pretty extreme restriction. But if it's the game I signed up for, I'm okay with that. Maybe it's because I am old and have played so many different games and editions at so many tables, but a gm banning a spell or ruleset would never bother me per se. If he is doing it on the fly and ir annoys me the problem is almost certainly railroading, not rule restrictions. If a GM banning one or two spells ruins my desire to play a wizard, those spells probably are a problem.
Rules Restrictions should have a reason behind it, other than "I don't like this" which can just come off as arbitrary. For example, in my game I asked players not to make a Druid character because in-universe, that has serious implications as to whether that character still has free will. However, I told them that's not a hard no, and the mechanics could be reflavored. The stereotypical "hippie ecologist" Druid is just not a thing in my world and my players needed to know that beforehand. That's totally different from banning races or nerfing feats "just because".
@@jokhard8137 I actually have no problem with "I don't like it." It just can't be when you try to cast it because it derails that encounter (railroading). I am even okay with it mid campaign 90% of the time as long as it's compensated for by letting me repick a spell. Now maybe if I am playing Ziffnab and the spell is fireball, or I am playing a similar character whose identity is that spell. Like banning flaming weapon for a spellsword. Or it happens commonly. But randomly banning one or two spells over the course of a 30 session campaign - most spells are fine. That's why I openly communicate my characters meta early and often to the GM. So he knows if I am playing Lothar the Lightning Lord, he better tell me now if any lightning powers are out and if they are, work with me on a substituion.
Just because can be a tough one, for sure. I think there are still times it's ok, but not, as doomedwit points out, if it pops up last moment. If you just can't stand gnomes, then I think it's ok to ban gnomes in session 0 and let folk decide if they wanna play in your game or not. But if you wait till a certain spell pops up and then "remember" you won't allow it, that gets old FAST.
Rule 1 - what the DM says go Rule 2 - see rule 1 More seriously Complaint 1 - in game the DM is always right. We can talk afterwards and review the decisions and adjust going forward. Nothing breaks a game like stopping to look up rules or argue Way to handle this is right it down and talk about it in the post game cool down. Each player talks about 1 thing Complaint 2 - if this was during session 0, than not sure what the issue is. If a DM is flip flopping it’s worth the group coming together out of session A way to handle this is make sure to have a cool down after the game and then from each player and the DM say 1 thing that really worked and 1 thing that didn’t seem to work Complaint 3 - cardinal sin. If the DM doesn’t have the expertise, then the flexibility needs to be with the players. This is number 1 reason new DMs quit A way to manage this is try to think in logical consequences: Do a) or b) … not ideal, but then it will be a) or b) or c) …. Then it will become “whatever” … think of this as training wheels Complaint 4 - it’s not wearing the wrong hat it’s simply favoritism - no place in a grow up game or sport . A way to manage this is simply player clocks (chess clicks) to help to pay attention to the time people have in the spot light Complaint 5 - think about it this way. A friend has a party for 100 friends - they arrange the food, the drink, the theme, even roses for some friends. Everyone wants to have fun, but it is common curtesy to realize that they are more important than any other single person at the party. So say thank you, have a good time, offer to help clean up or perhaps help prepare the next party, or maybe even have your own party and see what it takes. Get my point?
One thing that drives me nuts is when the DM always uses the rules as written for my PC while ALWAYS letting the rules be a little more flexible for others
Agree with that last one, it didn't help the DM literally couldn't keep his own game straight and took time out to take pot shots at me when he really should focus on running his game. Played favourites which I didn't give a damn about but had control of a PC who made two critical fumbles with a spell attack that "missed"one gnome mage and the other dropping my character who had survived one round fighting an Orc Warchief by dodging and wasn't likely to survive long. He dm fiated after that so it didn't become the TPK it should have been since none of the other three combined would have survived against that monster. He finally got "bored" and jumped settings despite that not being possible as by that point i was running my game there and it had been established they are NOT set on the same world.. He really couldn't be bothered to run his own game properly despite all he had to do was ask and allow me to finish what I was doing as that would allow that change within continuity. I spoke to him after and then quit because even if I continued he'd only get bored again and jump settings as he really didn't give a damn about it.
In my experience, the number 1 reason players get upset with DMs is taking away player and PC agency. I suppose this overlaps with a few of these five reasons. But after 42 years of playing, nothing ruins a game faster than the DM taking control of a PC or leaving no space for player decisions to matter in how the story unfolds. It's a game killer that creates resentment. A moment of hard railroading by the DM for the purposes of setting up a campaign or particular encounter is fine, however, if there DM talks it through with the players first.
I got really irritated with a DM for a couple of reasons. First, we were captured or had our agency taken from us for over half our time each session for 3 sessions straight. Second, DM knew a ton of lore and assumed we all had that same knowledge and made the "right" or best choice dependent on having that knowledge and gave us consequences for not knowing the lore.
I appreciate the points made about rules restrictions, but I believe a good DM often needs to arbitrarily enforce rules or skip them altogether to keep players engaged and maintain game flow. While applying the correct rules is important, rigid adherence can detract from fun and immersion. The only area where strict rule enforcement is crucial is during combat, where clarity and consistency are necessary for fairness. Outside of that, flexibility enhances the dynamic and enjoyment for everyone at the table.
Yea an adversarial game generally ends badly. With immature gamers, the DM may just start that way. In older groups I notice it is often a player that will start the problem by being provocative.
My friends arent fans of how I use dice less as a suceed/fail and more a best and worst case. Like if youre trying to seduce a noblewoman who has everything to gain from a marriage and everything to lose if she messes up, youre going to have a hard ass time talking her into it
This may be a "me" problem, but while I love your videos, I have to crank up the volume on both the video and my computer to hear them. Can you double-check to see if this is the case with others? I love your videos!
@@DM-Timothy I've seen previous issues like this resulting from improper audio balance where the end-user has a single speaker. Might not be the case here, but could be.
Here are some things for me: 1 GMs permitting too many player choices, meme characters, PvP, and other bullshit. 2. Speech checks or other unnecessary checks. Dice rolls for no reason other than the game says to roll dice. Skill Challenges. 3. A GM who doesn't understand the value of a GP. 4. Encounters that are too damn long. 5. Using Legendary Actions and Resistances.
lets get this straight skill challenges or bs? also Using Legendary action and Resistances ? that's a lair and its part of how that lair is a challenge. ok why is a speech check unnecessary? and other than the game says to roll? so you just want to auto succeed at what ever your doing skill wise?
@@blakenelson4158 I just wrote a primer on gaming without Charisma / speech mechanics. The word count is very high, too high for a RUclips comment! Let me pick one of my points from that. I as the player find it unsatisfying and punishing when I use my PLAYER communication skills but roll with my CHARACTER communication skills. Skills in a game should be for things the CHARACTER can do like swing a sword, but I the PLAYRER should be able to use my own craft, logic and creativity in-character to succeed on everything else. Skill challenges from 4e were a series of checks you had to make to complete a scene or situation, and you as party had to succeed X rolls out of X rolls, which was arbitrary, to succeed the challenge. They are contrived and they feel that way. They arbitrarily force you to think of solutions that come specifically from your character sheet, not your own ideas and roleplay. Awful times. Legendary Actions mean that a monster can interrupt turn Order and the flow of a game. It's very irritating. Just have them make extra actions on their own turn. Legendary resistances mean your monster has some contrived way of surviving being turned into a chair via true polymorph. It feels like bullshit and it means we can't use or weird utility spells, and it just artificially lengthens combats and wastes player resources, and it's not fun. I don't think there's anything special about being in the red dragons house (lair) that should give him this power. If there was it wouldn't be some intangible thing that exists exclusively has a game mechanic, it would be a magic item or low-magic field or something. Lair powers are artificial.
@@Joshuazx Ah yes you're going through what I call a "Discretionary Phase". Fortunately It can be outgrown by dealing with control issues and by playing more different games :P. Most of the problems that you listed are problems with the system not a DM. Might I recommend Dungeon World? You'll still play D&D style game but with a lighter (powered by the apocalypse) system that focuses more on roleplay rather than countless die rolls. It might fit more into what you're currently looking for in RPG's
@@Joshuazx Discretionary as in: Resolution of a declaration or an action comes at GM's/DM's discretion not as a result of a die roll. It usually happens as an overcorrection after a long period of excessive die rolling. (I hope what I wrote makes sense :D). So if I were to identify the actual problem it would be DM's overreliance on dice rolls versus their own judgement. I think I understand where you're coming from and I agree with some points that you have mentioned. What I'd disagree with is your approach to speech checks and your response to Blake. I can explain if you're up for it.
well number one reason a person is a bad DM. His players do not talk to him about what they want to see in the world build and how they see there character progressing. Like can we use the house rule that crits deal max damage + a role of the damage die? Cannot blame the DM if they do not know the players want to use the house rule. Lack of communication
Players are rather horrible these days. Badly behaved, massive expectations, against the spirit of the game AND more. There's nothing wrong with rules restrictions, if they want their way they can DM. "I don't like it, i don't want it" is entirely a good reason. From what I've seen with randoms players don't explore, you need to explore for them like a guide. And with players wanting bigger plots, yes, rails are the answer. The DM should be having more fun than the players, they are also the authority figure. Without a DM there is no game. Some small respect can go a long way. Players also tend to think of the ttrpgs as solo adventures despite the cooperative play and nature. This video... So bad....
Cheating. I had a campaign of over a year break apart, because the DM was cheating with saving throws. He wanted a NPC excape, but also boast and be an asshole so the NPC had to succeed in all saves and still continue fighting. Bonus points because it was in a roll20 campaign where we all had DM rights and could check the logs.
I am always a bit critical of the generic dm advice lists, especially when they are contradicting advice: ie, play RAW to give players constant expectations but consider their point of view and let them try crazy plans the rules explicitly forbid. Meh, what are you gonna do, they do not know you or your group? I will say most of these are spectrum issues too. Ie, you can lose people for being adversarial but you can lose people for not providing challenge to players too. The games that end because players are bored from lack of challenge tend to get blamed on the game instead of the gm, but that is a dial you can mess with in the gm seat.
Playing by the RAW does not have anything to do with letting your players try crazy plans. It means you are not customizing the rules. Your second point I completely agree with. Know your table.
lol, yeah, especially in the online space where players have options (and aren’t in their friend groups). Incidentally, these issues are worse when you don’t have options, because then they suck but fester…
It's a more recent phenomena. Back in the day you took any chance on any game you could join and played it for all you could because it wouldn't last and you never knew when you could play again.
Rules for DMs: 1. The DM is always right. 2. If the DM is ever wrong see rule 1. 3. If you disagree with a ruling you are free to leave. 4. If your players are leaving you shouldn't be a DM. There's no reason to stick with a DM if hanging out with them every Saturday night murdering goblins is not the most fun activity you can come up with. It's the DMs responsibility to continually outcompete Netflix, family functions and one night stands with strangers. It's not the players responsibility to show up.
Bull crap it is the players responsibility to show up. and partly your responsibility to help make the game fun. putting everything on the gm is Unfair.
Only time I Specifically walked away from a table, it was only after two sessions, and in both sessions, the DM effectively pointed at me and said "you die." The first session, we were level 1, in a ship-combat, and my Sorcerer took a Crit for what ended up being 20 damage, and auto-death. Part of that was the dice, part of it was poor encounter design, but I let it slide. Second session, my now 2nd level Sorcerer (DM fudged the rules a little bit to give me a Con save vs instant-death), was serving as a look-out while the rest of the party dug up some loot. I was at the top of a crumbling watch tower, and had my Owl Familiar circling overhead. The DM had me roll once for perception (I got a middling roll) and rolled once for a squad of Goblins (they got a 17), and the DM said I was surrounded before I had a chance to do anything (even though there was no cover for them to climb the tower... particularly not vs my owl's vision). He said I had one Action before things popped off. I figured my only chance at escape was to try incapacitate some of the Goblins so I could break free, and I cast Sleep where I was standing.... turns out that these weren't normal Goblins, but all Goblin Bosses, and I had fewer HP than any of them... so the only thing my spell did was knock myself out. DM declared they Coup De Grace me while I was out... and that was all I could take from that DM. 🤷 Dunno which "thing" that counts under 😝
Retconning things bc u forgot & gaslighting players abt it. Not communicating with players. Power with control tripping / gatekeeping. Coming in with ego like you’re better / know more than everyone else, are better than the game itself, or are bored by people engaging instead of following your railroad & don’t want to be there (ie making it all abt you, but not even having fun in the process… sounds very specific but seems incredibly common to the point it keeps a lot of games from even getting started? ) Canceling last minute all of the time or not setting boundaries on players who do / communicating abt schedule ahead of time..? Way worse tho, literally treating all the players like they’re there to follow everything you say in and out of the game just to fulfill your own story god complex that doesnt even involve gameplay and acting like you’re still doing them a favor. Not caring about the welfare of your players outside of the game including in emergencies. Taking everything like a personal insult if it isn’t what you wanted people to do in game or out. Not investing time or energy into anything or acting like it’s beneath you & the game doesn’t matter even if you do.
You have a speaking style on these videos you may want to address: You speak in a droning fashion with run-on sentences and occasionally dragging your words. It's disengaging.
Hey DM Tim, I liked listening very much. I have a critique for your editing. Let first say that you are really working hard and paying a lot of attention to your edits. That is really cool . However… the cuts of you facing forward, then left, turn right. And back and forth in seemingly random cycles is not feeling natural to me. I maybe wrong. And you are not asking for my opinion. But please rewatch this video and then watch a Joe Scott video. You will see what I’m talking about. Please keep putting in all of your hard work. Thank you!
This video makes me feel so much better as a DM. As a person with a lot of anxiety, seeing this video and thinking "This is a regular problem?" Feels good to know my issues are not the norm and my players are really having fun when they say so.
This is why you should play with friends, and take turns being DM.
It has worked very well for us for many years now.
How it *should* be; agreed
It’s worked for me for the past 8 years, although only 2 of us DM.
LOL not eveyrone is a DM..
@@badmojo0777 why not?
🥳🫂👍🏿
“Didn’t feel welcome” was the reason I didn’t stay at a table
why didnt you feel welcome?
@@badmojo0777 I was new to that city and its friendly local game store - I called ahead the week before to get acquainted with their rules - the only option was PF1 league rules - the DM we talked to said the only game available was level 5 but we could build 5th level characters to join in - my friend and I built characters per these directions - I guess we didn’t do it right by the DM on game day - he was different from the one we talked to the week before - he kind of bodged a solution together for us - all the players were a good bit younger than we were and knew each other well, so they weren’t super into these 25 year olds from out of town - the DM was a good bit older and sort of not interested in accommodating us being new to league play (we played 3.5 and PF1 at home plenty enough to know the rules just not league rules) - he kept cutting us off and targeted my character with an instant death effect which felt sort of targeted at me the player and a bit rough for your first session of league play -I fortunately survived by rolling very high (I think it was a 19 on the dice) - we didn’t feel any malice from the kids just that they weren’t welcoming - it did feel like the DM saw us as a burden - my friend and I left shortly after the game and agreed that wasn’t the table for us
When you wish to adjust rules or ban some items (subclass, spells, etc.) that is what session zero is for. I'm a newer DM (20 sessions), before I invited players I had a document drafted and posted on discord that showed rule changes or some restrictions for players to read, then held a session zero. 2 players decided not to stay in the group because I banned 3 subclasses as written, although I would allow for modifications. Honestly, that is fine, because they enjoyed more of an OP character, where I was looking for more of a challenging campaign. 4 out of the 6 players stated they never had a DM go over restrictions prior to the campaign starting, but found out those restrictions during the campaign. While changes can happen as time goes on, they should be very limited.
As much as it is nice to be upfront with restrictions, it tends to require that you know beforehand that you will need a restriction in a specific place. A lot of the time restrictions come in to handle something that has shown up or looks like it could show up in play, and you do not necessarily know these beforehand.
The most important part here is to try and be fair about these things, especially if deception was not employed in some way. This usually means trying to figure out some way to change things up such that it does not affect the players to adversally, at least compared to what they could fairly expect - you do not change one broken thing out with another, but if they were setting up some combo, allow them to change things to normal things that would work if they had not been going for such a combo.
The exception here is for deception, where you judge that someone was deliberately trying to deceive you into allowing something broken into the game, in which case one might not want to be as linient in how they would get to change things up. If all else fails, letting them make a new character at similar advancement can often be a reasonable solution if that character could not be salvaged.
Generally when people are more honest about such things and not trying to reach for broken things, then I would personally feel much safer allowing things for them, whereas people who seek such things out need to be watched, and as such will not get as much permission for borderline things as the risk of it ending up breaking things would generally be higher.
Session 0 is king. Lay out any and all rules that aren't RAW and obtain your players' consent to those changes. If you need to tweak things during the course of the campaign, have a separate conversation with your players either before or after a session and explain why you want to change something. Most folks tend to be pretty understanding, especially if you have a good reason and can articulate it.
There are a lot of things you can do with changing things on the fly to make it work better. Personally I tend to use a mix of 2 things:
1) When something comes up ingame that needs some kind of ruling or equivalent, then that ruling is implicitly temporary and associated with that specific situation. This ensures that people do not get scared by the potential rammifications of some specific ruling, and that prevents a lot of the rules lawyering that could otherwise come up.
2) Rules changes are generally done outside of the situation and discussed with the players and together with (likely) getting their approval. The point here is to do it outside of a specific situation where the rammifications would be directly advantagious or not to some specific people. This mostly takes out the bias and rules lawyering of such changes, and that makes it much easier to agree on things.
“The King emerges from the water and gives you the quest.”
I have to disagree on the Rules Restrictions point.
A 'I don't like this', or 'I don't think this is fun', to be a bit more charritable, is a perfectly valid reason to ban a rule from your table. As long as you are being transparent, it's your right as a GM to run your game the way you like to.
If 'some players on some tables' don't like that, then they can run their own game or play at a different table. A GM shouldn't be forced to play with rules they don't like.
As for 'arbitrary rules', I feel like a lot of people need to get out there and try some other games, specifically some more rules light systems. It's fine to roll with the punches from time to time. Your GM isn't your enemy. You don't need to know how everything around you works at all time.
Honestly this kind of feels to me like a 'control freak'-attitude, which apparently is a problem when a GM exhibits it, but if exhibited by a player it isn't a problem, in fact the GM is in the wrong, not the player.
Maybe I'm being a little too harsh here, but I feel like the DnD community has both a really weird obsession with RAW and a unfairly hostile attitude towards GMs sometimes.
GMs are players too, they deserve to have fun, just like everyone else.
The Rules Lawyer had a good video on Player Entitlement last month. I recommend watching it.
I don't think it's entirely a _player_ problem, as I think there's a lot in the actual system that encourages that entitlement. I also think it's a much better idea to use a different system rather than trying to cut away all of the things in 5e that don't fit with your setting and story. There are so many easy-to-learn systems out there that not only fit other settings and styles better, but they're much easier to tweak for the benefit of the players' _and_ GM's enjoyment.
Rules restrictions are okay if they are stated at the start, but if you constantly keep introducing new houserules to make the players fail, they are going to get frustrated.
This is why I play GURPS and not class / level based games. 1) it is far more flexible. 2) the rules are far more clear. 3) there are far less chances for a simple roll of a die to ruin the game. Sure, those still occasionally happen, but it seems easier to me to tweak some stuff to make someone lose an arm rather than their life. Also, it is occasionally hilarious to gimp a PC.
First of all, both players and DMs get to decide the rules. DMs are not better than everyone else despite what some of them think. If I don't like your table because you've introduced so many rule changes that I need to read a 2nd book to know how your pedantic version of "DnD" works, than I don't play your table. If enough players feel that way, you don't have a table either. We need DMs, DMs need players. So you better care what your players think. Enough of this "DM Supremacy" 🗑.
If you are going to borrow a set of rules, play those rules. Makes it simple and stops arguments. RAI is more important than RAW. You didnt create the game. You borrowed it. I don't get gow any of you have the balls to completely change the game when you put in 0% effort and are not a good game developer. Good game developers don't come up with dumb house rules like Crit Fumbles....which are legitimately dumb and hurt martials more than casters. Most your bomebrew sucks, isn't well thought out, and mostly comes from ignorance of RAI.
Yes, I am entitled to play DND, just like when I bought BG3 I was entitled to a fresh copy that I could play. I can pick my tables, and there are plenty of them locally and Online. I am entitled to the same experience 60% of players say they are entitled to according to polls because RAI is the most popular way to play DnD.
Universal rules everyone can grasp and master makes the game better and causes less conflict. Some of you DMs are pedantic as F and feel the need to leave your personal stench on everything you touch. Stick to story homebrew and leave the game physics to the pros is my suggestion. 😊
@007ohboy But, that being said, the DM IS the final arbiter of all rules arguments. Players do need to realize that sometimes they will fudge rolls, sometimes they will make up rules on the spot to avoid the game dragging, and sometimes it is for an important plot point. It is true that you can walk away from the table if you do not like the call a DM mad, but it is also possible to piss off a DM so you are not asked back.
I do agree that if you show up at a table and they have a book of house rules, I would just not even start. A book about custom races, classes and world building, I would be fine with.
We Dungeon Masters understand and appreciate Mordenkainen's philosophy - for we, too, must preserve a delicate Balance. ⚖ We must challenge our players sufficiently to keep the game interesting, but must not frustrate them to the point that it stops being fun (Good and Evil in equal measure). We must know when to lay down the Law and when to revel in the Chaos.
Another thing with rules restriction is when they just come out of nowhere. When there is no prior discussion with the player untill the rule comes up it can be very frustrating especially if you've developed features or respurces to the rhe thing being ruled out.
All of these are great tips as DM Timothy helps highlight our shortcomings as DMs to improve upon.
The cat reply @6:24 was such a cute, amazing gift! Some of the best cats on the internet, in my humble opinion!
The best tip for not railroading is don't have a specific solution in mind when creating the scenario. Create the problem and motivations and give your players hints to those motivations and the details of the situation they are in and let them come up with a solution.
I like to have "A" solution in mind, because otherwise it feels like players can't actually solve the situation legitimately. If whatever they come up with works, they didn't have to come up with anything. If I have a solution in mind, then I am happy to accept alternatives I didn't think of that'd also work, but to me the first solution is important to know. Mileage varies wildly by DM on that though, and I don't think there's a "right" path, just paths that work for different mindsets.
I started a group recently where we take turns GMing. It's a great group. It's nice to have players understand what the GM has to deal with. When we get rules issues, for the most part we let the session GM make a ruling and check it later.
Great video. I'm surprised that conflicts in play style didn't make the list. I loved the objectivity of doing this from a poll. 50% for adversarial DMs makes a lot of sense but I never would have guessed the number was so high!
The number surprised me, too!
It was the DM being overbearing in role playing context: it was a pick up game with 8 players and I was chosen as the face of the party because I had a decent cha. I went to talk to the guy giving us the job asked for all the groups names they were all spread out in the tavern and then I said "I don't know their names we just started like 5 minutes ago" but for some reason he took it as in character and started hounding me and calling me a bad leader for not knowing everyones names and seemed genuinely mad (probably just good roleplay) to make matters worse I just broke up about a week before this so I was still emotionally fragile and was hoping to relax playing some dnd.
RAW brings up an interesting issue for me. If we take it that the entirety of RAW is necessary for the mythical beast called "game balance" then by definition if you're not tracking spell components, exhaustion, the expenses of daily living, then what's the point of worrying about whether or not a specific niche is allowed in the game. This kind of behavior leans towards the Rules Lawyer (vs a Rules Sage) perspective of player types.
The flexibility of being the DM is really important. I run bespoke adventures for a table of two. One of the two was unable to make a session so I did a one on one to flesh out some backstory. In the second scene the Legio Lex Talionis, the equivalent of the Inquisition in the setting, and the players backstory is as a civic minded good citizen from a family of tax collectors for the empire. My dialogue was written with him being helpful and interested in not angering an official of the Inquisition when his family is vulnerable to the whims of the emperor. Is that what he did? Nope. He challenged the proceedings at every step. Oi vey! All my work out the window and now it's time to adlib. And this is probably where the issue of railroading comes in. Adlibbing is a skill learned over time and practice and requires a degree of confidence that (lets face it) many young DMs may lack.
Yup. That's definitely the wrong hat for you. Good use of props. My nit to pick today is that though grey works with the white undershirt, whatever that rectangular thing is at the V is a visual distraction from your face.
Very Old School AD&D player here. Our early basement dwelling sessions were very adversarial, in that we took delight in how difficult the DM could make the adventure. We started our D&D careers not as murder-hobos, but as Oceans 11 looters. We robbed everything and everyone. If we were exploring it was to rob someone. So we ran heist games with high levels of lethality. Combat wasn't the core of the sessions, but rather avoiding traps and guards were what we wanted to do. Grimtooth's traps were an inspiration for us.
And I leave you with this: there is no such thing as a Good Fun/Bad Fun dichotomy. Be an adult and if you're not having fun, leave. Don't ruin it for the rest of the people at the table.
The thing about RAW is that the rules are generally going to be flawed, and your biggest obstacle for good game balance and other such topics is those flaws in the rules. The problem is that most GMs do not (yet) have the kind of knowledge and experience needed to do better or fix those flaws --- at least in D&D and for doing it directly. The normal reasonable option for a GM is then to make a local small scale fix of some particular problem that arrise from those flaws together with setting up a social agreement to not try and have either side go too much into the area where those flaws can become a problem.
As an example of one of those flaws (asside from specific broken combos), then the core of D&D, the D20 roll is actually quite flawed. One of its main flaws is related to "Bounded Accuracy", which is basically trading one flaw in the 3.x version with another flaw in 5E+, where in the old versions it could happen that the D20 roll got so biased that the hits easily became either almost impossible or way too easy, which "Bounded Accuracy" tried to fix by pushing all the scaling into a much shorter probability area (though still left some ways to escape that, and still cause problems, but now without the system being designed to handle such things), which instead made it such that the amount of power difference it could handle was much smaller and effectively reduced the different levels of competence that one could play with, while also scewing the balance of core power compared to other modifiers.
There were a few issues with a group I played with. First, the DM occasionally let slip an adversarial attitude. He couldn’t balance encounters very well, and would get visibly butthurt when he didn’t get to use certain monster abilities. He would go out of his way to make sure we couldn’t use roleplaying out of combat to avoid encounters altogether, or to do anything clever. When he did get to use certain abilities, you could see a certain amount of glee on his face as it makes the encounter totally pointless, as he would have to bend over backwards to avoid a TPK after inflicting us with some unrecoverable status effects. His encounters would often involve multiple monsters at a very high CR rating (think 2 or 3 at CR 20 and some CR 10s against a party of four level 14s). His descriptions often left out any critical hints or information that one might expect should be readily provided without actively asking about it.
“You enter a room”
“What do we see?”
“Roll a perception check”
“Ok, uh, 9”
“You don’t see anything of note”
“So an empty room?”
“As far as you can tell”
Later we would find out we missed an important book sitting on a table in plain sight. Enemies with clearly high-value magical equipment would frequently just evaporate after being defeated with no in-universe reason other than he couldn’t be bothered to think about what we could loot. He would also be very stubborn when faced with a disagreement over rules. But probably the worst part was his inability to keep the game on track. Two or three of his friends were always taking shots during the game, constantly on their phones or not paying attention. They would go off on random conversations and constantly be surprised by things like the fire-based monster being immune to fire damage, or generally not knowing anything about how their own characters function. The worst part was when they would join in the drinking and get so sloshed in the middle of an encounter that I would actively have to correct him on what the monsters are even capable of doing (like not being able to use their nuking ability at will to do 12d10 damage…)
Spending almost two hours to get through just 4 rounds of combat is not fun.
Thanks you so much. I’m dm’ing my first campaign on Saturday and have rapidly been trying to find advice about how to be a good dm
I hope it went well and everyone had fun!
It went so well we all had so much fun and they asked if I could do a session 2 the very next day
Great work!
My pleasure! If anything comes up you can't find advice on, shoot me a message and I'll try and help. Glad to hear it went well and I hope you're still playing strong!!
Scheduling is the Carbon Monoxide of table top gaming, the silent killer
It's sad because it's true. :(
Two cases I still curse about were related to the DM/GM basically saying "Whatever". The worst one was the time when the GM straight-up rejected any feedback claiming that he just played as the world how he saw fit and didn't care if we liked it. One that I didn't deliberately leave but also didn't go out of my way to stay in when real life intervened, featured making rulings on the spot based on vibes. I never called it "Mom, can I?" but it probably captures why I was uncomfortable with it pretty well; other players didn't have any issues with it.
Although I agree that all of these can be problems, I think that #4 (Rules Restrictions) tends to be both misused and misunderstood. Many rulebooks have sections of rules clearly marked as OPTIONAL (Feats are an example in 5e D&D, or Setting Rules in Savage Worlds such as Creative Combat, Dynamic Backlash, and Fanatics). And many times, players like these optional rules, and will consider them "must haves." I personally know of a case with a new DM who was running for experienced players, and when she told them for 5e, no Feats and no Multiclassing, because she was just learning the rules, they called her a bad DM. Also, "arbitrary" restrictions -- I restricted reptilian races in 5e because my game, set in Rome, had them as the enemy, but it was a secret before we started (a mystery they had to solve as to why these creatures no longer "existed"). If I had told them WHY they couldn't play those races before we started, it would have ruined the plot. So lots of times, we GMs have reasons for what we do, but we can't tell you without spoiling it. This is where players need to trust their GM.
Trust in a DM is very important. It's often a thing we have to earn over time. I feel for the new DM you mentioned, and don't think she (or you with the lizardmen thing) were stepping into bad DM territory at all. Sometimes, explaining that you have a reason but need to keep it quiet for campaign purposes is the best way to head off any player trouble.
The biggest reason for me for not so much leaving games but not even joining them in the first place is DMs with huge laundry lists of really weird house rules, and a subcategory of this, the 'gritty realism' dms who usually have bunch of house rules with the sole focus of making things as unfun as possible and dedicated solely to nerfing player characters.
For sure, loads of unnecessary houserules are a big turn off.
Do the players refuse to play any other game than 5e?
That's because the player character options are too strong for what they want to run
@@petegiantoften, yes. 5e is a huge comfort down to the point players complain the DM gave them a "deadly" encounter.
When next you hear about DMs leaving the, remember that they get no support and loads of punishment while players get a video game experience, stronger with every new book, and even agree with WOTC trying to turn the and ttrpgs far more into video game experiences. The
Newest book even goes as far to say "your DMs will hate these options! Fun for players, bad for monsters". What's the point of being a DM if you're unable to run challenging tense combat for the players AND the players just keep receiving more and more unneeded ever more overpowered options and you don't even get a decent addition to the monster manual? All the time God forbid you nerf or limit player options or homebrew a challenge
@@elgatochurro Which is a sign of a bad dm, the dm has infinite tools at their disposal for tweaking encounters to be appropriately challenging.
Always enjoy the videos. They are very well thought out and conveyed. Many thanks! The only game I ever left, was because another player was so disruptive (the husband of the DM).
Biggest reason I left once was the DM's utter unwillingness to tolerate anything that wasn't a compliment. He made some very odd decisions.. taking our rolls away (no explanation, he had no good reason), deciding that one little punch straight up kills a guy (no rolls, no nothing) and ending session there, leaving me concerned with the consequences for a week.. he was unwilling to discuss it with me because, I quote, "you seemed suicidal". =/ I wasn't nor made any reference to this. Worst was him taking an innate class ability away, nerfing it into being useless, because...no reason, again.
I could deal with the system of needing to find a trainer and only getting like 2-3 spells when leveling up despite being a Cleric.. and his obsession with making Curse of Strahd "Town of Barovia everyday life Simulator". But the rest really wasn't alright.
In fact, discussing any concerns at all was apparently not tolerated whatsoever, something he didn't mention in our session zero. He became unresponsive, visibly annoyed, and basically tells you to "fucking roll with it or fucking leave".
Sure, DM gets to decide how they run their games, but... making all sorts of strange choices out of nowhere, that directly affect the players, with no reason or explanation given, and then getting pissy when you ask.. that goes beyond what's acceptable. Easily the worst and most uncooperative DM I've ever had. I was basically forced to leave, while the rest stuck around and cast me aside completely. Some friends. *shakes head*
Sounds like a rough time for sure. Sorry you went through it!
I will admit my first experience dming I did some railroading and it caused a player to leave. However said player always wanted to do something complicated to the newly defeated boss that left lots of openings in my mind for them to get away and continue. At the end of the campaign, he wanted to lock the two Gods who wanted to take away all free will in an ordinary mortal prison, instead of the Dimension a third more benevolent God was freed from being kept open for the express purpose of sealing them away. I'm pretty sure my refusal to allow this is why he left during the denouement.
great stuff. thank you! i’ll be on my best behavior!
For me the wearing the wrong hat and inflexibility are probably the 2 biggest reason to walk. And the way that shows up for me is the game becomes un-fun. And I game to have fun. So if everything is a struggle, not fun, and thinking about spending a day playing just makes me feel bad I am likely to leave the game eventually.
My group fell apart recently because after last session in an RP heavy campaign DM asked us to limit one on one roleplay sessions between player characters, because due to lack of time we've been playing two hour long sessions rather than 3-4 hour long ones and other people at the table are bored.
Me and my friend took it to mean that one on one roleplay is now unwelcome at the table and figured that maybe it would be a good idea to just do such scenes privately. Better to have such roleplay unofficially than not have it at all. We started talking with the rest of the group and others liked that idea, too.
Then the DM started having second thoughts about the roleplay situation, we've communicated that we started trying to organize ourselves so that campaign pacing can increase and nobody needs to feel bored at the table, so there are options, and then the DM absolutely exploded and ended the campaign.
Should we have told them about the idea before talking to the rest of the group? Yeah, absolutely. But the reaction on their end was way too severe I feel. During post fallout discussion it also came to light that absolutely no one was bored at the table while others were doing their roleplay things and the DMs comment came from them thinking we are bored without actually getting any feedback about that being the case.
Sorry to hear about your group implosion. :( Communication, and the ability to keep a calm head when things aren’t going how you expect, are SO key. :(
@@DM-Timothy we were entering act three, too :( A year and a half in the making.
Where do I find the dm analysing tool? It's nit in the description box or on the screen...
my group solves many of the problems in this video by not even using a rulebook, and playing entirelly homebrew campaigns.
not a single one of us have enough patience to read the rulebooks
Honestly, as far as rules restrictions. I don't care if you don't like how I run my games. Whenever I invite people to play, I always give a list of things that are restricted and/or outright prohibited. There are rules that rules or feats that I simply don't like, because it makes my life as a DM miserable. And I know that the players that usually play with me, would exploit it. So if you don't want to play on my table, don't play. But I always give most of the restrictions even before session 0. There are always people wanting to play. It's very rare when a rule or restriction comes in the middle of the adventure. When it happens, I try to negotiate with the player, but if they are not willing to find a middle ground. They are welcome to walk away without any harsh feeling, from my side at least.
Whats is the background music youre using on this video?
Favoritism has to be at the top of my list followed closely by changing rules on the fly (nerfing character abilities when used, adding abilities to monsters mid combat). This caused me to step away from a game (both). The rest are pet peeves of mine, but never caused me to leave a game. DMs that don't prepare, picking on players, ignores what you say (ignores plans), DMs that attack you before combat starts!!! Oh my gosh, I almost forgot that one!
Agreed! Non-sandbox does not mean railroad. Railroading is when you are forced to solve challenges one way and not allowed to brainstorm up you own solution. It can happen in any style of game, even a sandbox.
The DM wears about 7 hats.
Session 0 is a must!
How do you know when a GM is adding abilities to monsters mid combat / why does that bother you?
Adapting scenarios during a session to player choices is a key part of GMing well.
@@hodgepodgesyntaxia2112 - Because I know a dragon doesn't have mindblank or anything similar. He did it so my telepathy ability wouldn't work just to spite me.
@@sleepinggiant4062 okay, but in that example, you don’t know if the change was pre planned or improvised, and the issue is the GM’s perceived malice, not the technique employed.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with introducing a monster that’s immune to some character ability to challenge a player in a new way.
@@hodgepodgesyntaxia2112 - I know it was not a preplanned ability because he was surprised and then he said it didn't work. Nothing about the dragon's ability. It had nothing to do with challenging us. We saved the dragon, and when I polymorphed it to get it out of the chamber it was trapped in, it didn't turn into what I shapechanged it into, it chose it's form. The DM was like this frequently. He did it to spite me and have the dragon save face.
@@sleepinggiant4062 you’re not actually critiquing ‘changing rules on the fly.’ You’re just critiquing malice.
Without the GM freedom to change and adapt, almost every encounter would be functionally railroaded. The technique is invaluable for running games that are responsive to player choice.
I feel like rules and option bans never bothered me.
But I know some players only ever have one character idea at a time, and it might revolve around some specific rule and might struggle. I could play a game where the gm said "everyone has to be a human rogue" and I coukd make enough distinct compliant characters for a party.
And that's a pretty extreme restriction. But if it's the game I signed up for, I'm okay with that.
Maybe it's because I am old and have played so many different games and editions at so many tables, but a gm banning a spell or ruleset would never bother me per se.
If he is doing it on the fly and ir annoys me the problem is almost certainly railroading, not rule restrictions.
If a GM banning one or two spells ruins my desire to play a wizard, those spells probably are a problem.
Rules Restrictions should have a reason behind it, other than "I don't like this" which can just come off as arbitrary.
For example, in my game I asked players not to make a Druid character because in-universe, that has serious implications as to whether that character still has free will. However, I told them that's not a hard no, and the mechanics could be reflavored. The stereotypical "hippie ecologist" Druid is just not a thing in my world and my players needed to know that beforehand.
That's totally different from banning races or nerfing feats "just because".
@@jokhard8137 I actually have no problem with "I don't like it." It just can't be when you try to cast it because it derails that encounter (railroading).
I am even okay with it mid campaign 90% of the time as long as it's compensated for by letting me repick a spell. Now maybe if I am playing Ziffnab and the spell is fireball, or I am playing a similar character whose identity is that spell. Like banning flaming weapon for a spellsword. Or it happens commonly. But randomly banning one or two spells over the course of a 30 session campaign - most spells are fine.
That's why I openly communicate my characters meta early and often to the GM. So he knows if I am playing Lothar the Lightning Lord, he better tell me now if any lightning powers are out and if they are, work with me on a substituion.
Just because can be a tough one, for sure. I think there are still times it's ok, but not, as doomedwit points out, if it pops up last moment. If you just can't stand gnomes, then I think it's ok to ban gnomes in session 0 and let folk decide if they wanna play in your game or not. But if you wait till a certain spell pops up and then "remember" you won't allow it, that gets old FAST.
I knew a DM who had all those traits. After few sessions played I dropped out from the campaign.
Rule 1 - what the DM says go
Rule 2 - see rule 1
More seriously
Complaint 1 - in game the DM is always right. We can talk afterwards and review the decisions and adjust going forward. Nothing breaks a game like stopping to look up rules or argue
Way to handle this is right it down and talk about it in the post game cool down. Each player talks about 1 thing
Complaint 2 - if this was during session 0, than not sure what the issue is. If a DM is flip flopping it’s worth the group coming together out of session
A way to handle this is make sure to have a cool down after the game and then from each player and the DM say 1 thing that really worked and 1 thing that didn’t seem to work
Complaint 3 - cardinal sin. If the DM doesn’t have the expertise, then the flexibility needs to be with the players. This is number 1 reason new DMs quit
A way to manage this is try to think in logical consequences: Do a) or b) … not ideal, but then it will be a) or b) or c) …. Then it will become “whatever” … think of this as training wheels
Complaint 4 - it’s not wearing the wrong hat it’s simply favoritism - no place in a grow up game or sport .
A way to manage this is simply player clocks (chess clicks) to help to pay attention to the time people have in the spot light
Complaint 5 - think about it this way. A friend has a party for 100 friends - they arrange the food, the drink, the theme, even roses for some friends. Everyone wants to have fun, but it is common curtesy to realize that they are more important than any other single person at the party. So say thank you, have a good time, offer to help clean up or perhaps help prepare the next party, or maybe even have your own party and see what it takes.
Get my point?
I do. It's a common stance. I believe that DMing is a servant position, not a lording one, but opinions vary, and that's ok. :)
One thing that drives me nuts is when the DM always uses the rules as written for my PC while ALWAYS letting the rules be a little more flexible for others
The way I think of it is kind of like a setter in volleyball. I want to set my players up to feel badass
Agree with that last one, it didn't help the DM literally couldn't keep his own game straight and took time out to take pot shots at me when he really should focus on running his game.
Played favourites which I didn't give a damn about but had control of a PC who made two critical fumbles with a spell attack that "missed"one gnome mage and the other dropping my character who had survived one round fighting an Orc Warchief by dodging and wasn't likely to survive long.
He dm fiated after that so it didn't become the TPK it should have been since none of the other three combined would have survived against that monster.
He finally got "bored" and jumped settings despite that not being possible as by that point i was running my game there and it had been established they are NOT set on the same world..
He really couldn't be bothered to run his own game properly despite all he had to do was ask and allow me to finish what I was doing as that would allow that change within continuity.
I spoke to him after and then quit because even if I continued he'd only get bored again and jump settings as he really didn't give a damn about it.
In my experience, the number 1 reason players get upset with DMs is taking away player and PC agency. I suppose this overlaps with a few of these five reasons. But after 42 years of playing, nothing ruins a game faster than the DM taking control of a PC or leaving no space for player decisions to matter in how the story unfolds. It's a game killer that creates resentment. A moment of hard railroading by the DM for the purposes of setting up a campaign or particular encounter is fine, however, if there DM talks it through with the players first.
Great point. Agency is crazy important.
I got really irritated with a DM for a couple of reasons. First, we were captured or had our agency taken from us for over half our time each session for 3 sessions straight. Second, DM knew a ton of lore and assumed we all had that same knowledge and made the "right" or best choice dependent on having that knowledge and gave us consequences for not knowing the lore.
Currently in a game where I am not going to leave it. That said, not upset when we don't play. Sure that's not a good sign.
I appreciate the points made about rules restrictions, but I believe a good DM often needs to arbitrarily enforce rules or skip them altogether to keep players engaged and maintain game flow. While applying the correct rules is important, rigid adherence can detract from fun and immersion. The only area where strict rule enforcement is crucial is during combat, where clarity and consistency are necessary for fairness. Outside of that, flexibility enhances the dynamic and enjoyment for everyone at the table.
Yea an adversarial game generally ends badly. With immature gamers, the DM may just start that way. In older groups I notice it is often a player that will start the problem by being provocative.
My friends arent fans of how I use dice less as a suceed/fail and more a best and worst case. Like if youre trying to seduce a noblewoman who has everything to gain from a marriage and everything to lose if she messes up, youre going to have a hard ass time talking her into it
This may be a "me" problem, but while I love your videos, I have to crank up the volume on both the video and my computer to hear them. Can you double-check to see if this is the case with others? I love your videos!
I hear him just fine.
I have been getting this feedback from occasional viewers here and there but can never track it down. Sorry for the troubles!
@@DM-Timothy I've seen previous issues like this resulting from improper audio balance where the end-user has a single speaker. Might not be the case here, but could be.
@@TheK5K Thanks for this suggestion. I'm looking into it!
wrong hat. a wedding ring is sometimes called a ring of dm control.
Here are some things for me:
1 GMs permitting too many player choices, meme characters, PvP, and other bullshit.
2. Speech checks or other unnecessary checks. Dice rolls for no reason other than the game says to roll dice. Skill Challenges.
3. A GM who doesn't understand the value of a GP.
4. Encounters that are too damn long.
5. Using Legendary Actions and Resistances.
lets get this straight skill challenges or bs? also Using Legendary action and Resistances ? that's a lair and its part of how that lair is a challenge.
ok why is a speech check unnecessary? and other than the game says to roll? so you just want to auto succeed at what ever your doing skill wise?
@@blakenelson4158 I just wrote a primer on gaming without Charisma / speech mechanics. The word count is very high, too high for a RUclips comment! Let me pick one of my points from that. I as the player find it unsatisfying and punishing when I use my PLAYER communication skills but roll with my CHARACTER communication skills. Skills in a game should be for things the CHARACTER can do like swing a sword, but I the PLAYRER should be able to use my own craft, logic and creativity in-character to succeed on everything else.
Skill challenges from 4e were a series of checks you had to make to complete a scene or situation, and you as party had to succeed X rolls out of X rolls, which was arbitrary, to succeed the challenge. They are contrived and they feel that way. They arbitrarily force you to think of solutions that come specifically from your character sheet, not your own ideas and roleplay. Awful times.
Legendary Actions mean that a monster can interrupt turn Order and the flow of a game. It's very irritating. Just have them make extra actions on their own turn. Legendary resistances mean your monster has some contrived way of surviving being turned into a chair via true polymorph. It feels like bullshit and it means we can't use or weird utility spells, and it just artificially lengthens combats and wastes player resources, and it's not fun. I don't think there's anything special about being in the red dragons house (lair) that should give him this power. If there was it wouldn't be some intangible thing that exists exclusively has a game mechanic, it would be a magic item or low-magic field or something. Lair powers are artificial.
@@Joshuazx Ah yes you're going through what I call a "Discretionary Phase". Fortunately It can be outgrown by dealing with control issues and by playing more different games :P. Most of the problems that you listed are problems with the system not a DM. Might I recommend Dungeon World? You'll still play D&D style game but with a lighter (powered by the apocalypse) system that focuses more on roleplay rather than countless die rolls. It might fit more into what you're currently looking for in RPG's
@@XerxesVault what's a discretionary phase? And I think I would describe it different.
@@Joshuazx Discretionary as in: Resolution of a declaration or an action comes at GM's/DM's discretion not as a result of a die roll. It usually happens as an overcorrection after a long period of excessive die rolling. (I hope what I wrote makes sense :D). So if I were to identify the actual problem it would be DM's overreliance on dice rolls versus their own judgement. I think I understand where you're coming from and I agree with some points that you have mentioned. What I'd disagree with is your approach to speech checks and your response to Blake. I can explain if you're up for it.
well number one reason a person is a bad DM. His players do not talk to him about what they want to see in the world build and how they see there character progressing. Like can we use the house rule that crits deal max damage + a role of the damage die? Cannot blame the DM if they do not know the players want to use the house rule. Lack of communication
Lack of communication is always a problem. Good point.
Do people like this even exist? I'm sure they do online, but i've never seen a DM like this in person in 20 years.
The horror stories have accelerated since online play became as prevalent as it is, but they have always existed.
Players are rather horrible these days. Badly behaved, massive expectations, against the spirit of the game AND more.
There's nothing wrong with rules restrictions, if they want their way they can DM. "I don't like it, i don't want it" is entirely a good reason.
From what I've seen with randoms players don't explore, you need to explore for them like a guide. And with players wanting bigger plots, yes, rails are the answer.
The DM should be having more fun than the players, they are also the authority figure. Without a DM there is no game. Some small respect can go a long way. Players also tend to think of the ttrpgs as solo adventures despite the cooperative play and nature.
This video... So bad....
Cheating. I had a campaign of over a year break apart, because the DM was cheating with saving throws. He wanted a NPC excape, but also boast and be an asshole so the NPC had to succeed in all saves and still continue fighting. Bonus points because it was in a roll20 campaign where we all had DM rights and could check the logs.
Oof! Yeah, bonus points is one way of wording it.
Idk if id consider fudged rolls cheating
I am always a bit critical of the generic dm advice lists, especially when they are contradicting advice: ie, play RAW to give players constant expectations but consider their point of view and let them try crazy plans the rules explicitly forbid. Meh, what are you gonna do, they do not know you or your group?
I will say most of these are spectrum issues too. Ie, you can lose people for being adversarial but you can lose people for not providing challenge to players too. The games that end because players are bored from lack of challenge tend to get blamed on the game instead of the gm, but that is a dial you can mess with in the gm seat.
Very true
Playing by the RAW does not have anything to do with letting your players try crazy plans. It means you are not customizing the rules.
Your second point I completely agree with. Know your table.
Totally fair points. Good DMing involves a lot of careful application of contradictory points, lol.
Players walk away from tables?
Who knew, right? 😉
@TheVTTDM yeah, i heard rumors about this.
But i thought it was just a myth.
lol, yeah, especially in the online space where players have options (and aren’t in their friend groups). Incidentally, these issues are worse when you don’t have options, because then they suck but fester…
It's a more recent phenomena. Back in the day you took any chance on any game you could join and played it for all you could because it wouldn't last and you never knew when you could play again.
@@sleepinggiant4062 I was just joking, myself. I know it happens.
Rules for DMs:
1. The DM is always right.
2. If the DM is ever wrong see rule 1.
3. If you disagree with a ruling you are free to leave.
4. If your players are leaving you shouldn't be a DM.
There's no reason to stick with a DM if hanging out with them every Saturday night murdering goblins is not the most fun activity you can come up with.
It's the DMs responsibility to continually outcompete Netflix, family functions and one night stands with strangers.
It's not the players responsibility to show up.
Bull crap it is the players responsibility to show up. and partly your responsibility to help make the game fun. putting everything on the gm is Unfair.
Cool. Now do a video on toxic players.
I did! :) ruclips.net/video/PYQ7JiWrYew/видео.html
omg a kitty
Welcome. :) Here, we have cats!
@@DM-Timothy that’s why I’m here
@@DM-Timothy Some of the best cats on the internet + Some of the best D&D advice on the internet = lots and lots of gratitude🙏
@@socialcommentary Thank you so much, you’re way too kind!!
@@StayedBoot7207 well stay tuned, I’m adding cat video to my end credits… :D
The rules obey the DM, not vice versa. With that comes the responsibility to use your authority to make the game more fun for your players.
Only time I Specifically walked away from a table, it was only after two sessions, and in both sessions, the DM effectively pointed at me and said "you die."
The first session, we were level 1, in a ship-combat, and my Sorcerer took a Crit for what ended up being 20 damage, and auto-death. Part of that was the dice, part of it was poor encounter design, but I let it slide.
Second session, my now 2nd level Sorcerer (DM fudged the rules a little bit to give me a Con save vs instant-death), was serving as a look-out while the rest of the party dug up some loot. I was at the top of a crumbling watch tower, and had my Owl Familiar circling overhead. The DM had me roll once for perception (I got a middling roll) and rolled once for a squad of Goblins (they got a 17), and the DM said I was surrounded before I had a chance to do anything (even though there was no cover for them to climb the tower... particularly not vs my owl's vision). He said I had one Action before things popped off. I figured my only chance at escape was to try incapacitate some of the Goblins so I could break free, and I cast Sleep where I was standing.... turns out that these weren't normal Goblins, but all Goblin Bosses, and I had fewer HP than any of them... so the only thing my spell did was knock myself out.
DM declared they Coup De Grace me while I was out... and that was all I could take from that DM. 🤷
Dunno which "thing" that counts under 😝
Good info but ditch the lame background music.
The only good thing about back stories is they come in handy if you run out of toilet paper.
Retconning things bc u forgot & gaslighting players abt it. Not communicating with players. Power with control tripping / gatekeeping. Coming in with ego like you’re better / know more than everyone else, are better than the game itself, or are bored by people engaging instead of following your railroad & don’t want to be there (ie making it all abt you, but not even having fun in the process… sounds very specific but seems incredibly common to the point it keeps a lot of games from even getting started? ) Canceling last minute all of the time or not setting boundaries on players who do / communicating abt schedule ahead of time..? Way worse tho, literally treating all the players like they’re there to follow everything you say in and out of the game just to fulfill your own story god complex that doesnt even involve gameplay and acting like you’re still doing them a favor. Not caring about the welfare of your players outside of the game including in emergencies. Taking everything like a personal insult if it isn’t what you wanted people to do in game or out. Not investing time or energy into anything or acting like it’s beneath you & the game doesn’t matter even if you do.
Rough stuff. Sadly, things I have seen.
You have a speaking style on these videos you may want to address: You speak in a droning fashion with run-on sentences and occasionally dragging your words. It's disengaging.
I felt engaged!
Hey DM Tim, I liked listening very much.
I have a critique for your editing. Let first say that you are really working hard and paying a lot of attention to your edits. That is really cool .
However… the cuts of you facing forward, then left, turn right. And back and forth in seemingly random cycles is not feeling natural to me. I maybe wrong. And you are not asking for my opinion.
But please rewatch this video and then watch a Joe Scott video. You will see what I’m talking about.
Please keep putting in all of your hard work. Thank you!
Man, why are you talking of DnD as if it was the only ttRPG out there?? It's not. It's not by far not even the best ttRPG!
Because D&D is what I play! :) It's my favorite, and so I talk about what I know and love.
I was with you until you said "toxic"
That was the exacr moment I walked away from your game.
Fix your audio, man