One of the most obnoxious things I've seen DMs do, and it's more than a handful of them, is how they don't assume that players don't take common-sense actions. For example "I search the bedroom, I didn't see anything even with a Perception 23?" "You didn't say you were searching the dressers." Or my recurring favorite: "You don't have enough time to cast Mage Armor, I'm not going to let you start out with it. Even though you had plenty of time between hearing there were bandits in the town square and actually heading downstairs to take care of it."
Absolutely agreed with you, this is one of the most off-putting things I have experienced. If they wanted to hear specific description of search they should ask "so what are you searching for and where exactly?"
You need to tell where are you searching, there's literally an example in the PHB that mentions it. There are a plentory of motives for that, like the fact that Interacting or not with some objects may trigger something (e.g. trap).
For DMs that do not complete their campaigns for some reason i have some advice. Do a timeskip, let the players role some dice and together determine what the characters have done during the time skip. Then do 1 climactic oneshot session ending the campaign.
that works, when skipping levels from ~8 to ~13. When the PCs are level 5 at most, they are too weak for timeskip, they cannot get their will across the hordes of nobles and factions that will just use them.
@@texteel still works for lower levels. Your climactic ending is just different. Stuff like a heist, preventing an assasination or dismantiling the criminal organisation can be lower level campaign ending sessions. And if these are not satisfactory you can also add levels to the characters when you timeskip. Its not perfect and certainly not a fix all. But its better then having a campaign end without an ending
I was the pilot in a star wars game 20 years ago :) . The whole party was on board my ship while I was trying to escape from a bunch of imperial Tie fighters on a planet. On the most crucial moment I rolled my pool of dice in order to resolve the situation doing a crazy manoeuvre! All the dices rolled 1s... I killed the whole party... :(
one caveat to #1 Worst: When a player is new, it is ok to outline options. "So, Benjin, you are standing in the kitchens, the guards have left your side with instructions, 'You had better be here when we get back!' You suspect you will have several minutes before they return. What would you like to do?" Uh, I dunno. "Your team's plan was to find a discrete entrance. Would you like to don a disguise? Slink away when none of the scullery maids are watching? Would you like to hit up one of the maids to see if she knows of a back door? Or, do you have something else up your sleeve?"
The three gnolls were just on a sightseeing tour when they encountered...."a band of ruffians. It seems like a motley assortment randomly thrown together. There's a human, a halfling, a dwarf, and a half-elf. They stare at you and then pounce. They have surprise and come at you with all they've got!" The gnolls, stunned, try to defend themselves as best they can, but are hacked down mercilessly (or blasted mercilessly. Anyhow there's no quarter given, and, to be fair, no quarter asked - as far as the gnolls know, this band of scruffy ruffians are a bunch of bloodthirsty brigands). Meanwhile, elsewhere, the families of the three gnolls all look forward for their return, and the stories they might tell. They wait, and wait. And wait. And wait. Soon it becomes clear their loved ones are not coming back. The question is: Who is going to tell *them* the thread that integrates things into the overall story? Who? Many such cases.
I feel like you have not really read the lore about gnolls... gnolls don't have families or loved ones, or compassion, they only think about one thing, feeding the endless hunger of Yeenoghu, they are really more like demons than humanoids.
Klaital1 Sure, that’s the Forgotten Realms lore, but bear in mind that the lore on Gnolls, or anything else for that matter, can vary wildly from setting to setting.
Agreed. Often times, the DM needs to call out a player for acting entirely out of alignment (in a respectful way, of course). Do I think they shouldn't allow something? Heck, no. but, if a chaotic good bard is constantly acting in a lawful manner, they certainly would begin to lose some of their less savory contacts' trust. A Neutral Good cleric of Chauntea goes all murderhobo? Then yes, they're going to need to lose some of their goddess' powers. Alignment should never govern a player's options, but their options should have consequences.
Policing alignment I agree to a certain extent. But if a good aligned cleric or Paladin starts murder hoboing or committing crimes I think it’s reasonable for the characters deity to withdraw their divine magic. The character is basically his or her deity’s standard bearer as such should represent the values of said deity.
Going along with #7, a theme isn't just an aesthetic, it's a collection of ideas that ties an aesthetic together. Themes aren't just 'horror' or 'war story', it's a persistent and recurring idea that occurs within the story, such as 'how culpable are you for making wrong decisions on incomplete information' or 'what does it mean when you fail a coming-of-age ceremony' or 'what would you be willing to do to protect your loved ones' or 'are there times when hypocrisy is a virtue and consistency is a vice'? When you're putting together a campaign that's supposed to be memorable, it's not enough to go 'I want to have a badass war campaign where people are fighting a guerilla war against a corrupt government'. There needs to be a theme to tie those scenes together, such as, 'how much should someone morally compromise to win a war' where you have moments such as whether you should allow looting to prevent a mutiny or whether you should forgive some of the more corrupt nobles willing to support your cause.
Thank you. "What can you stand on when everything is treachery?" "How does devastation affect a land and a people?" "Power Corrupts" "What is the price for victory?" All can make decent themes for a D&D game. Or another game. :)
I’ve recently been trying to run a series of one page adventures. Ive been stringing them together and filling in the gaps to make a campaign. Last one page adventure I wasn’t aware of how potent an intellect devourer. It was written to explode out of the skull of one of the gnome that had been captured by grim locks. The intellect devourer immediately targeted/stunned the barbarian, who was examining the sickly gnome. upon reading the rest of the features on that turn, I immediately looked at the rest of the party and told them they had 1 round to kill this thing right now or they’re fucked. I don’t know if that was the right thing to do, but there was a definite change in the tension of the room. No one asked me any meta questions or anything, they just kept roleplaying. The resistance to non magical weapon attacks almost had it survive, and it was only a CR 2 creature. We left off with them stuck in a tower trying to figure out what to do with a barbarian whose basically in a coma with 0 intellect.
pro#3 is the rarest. That is why I get bored of doing nothing at levels 1-3. Because its always those levels. There is always a reason why it ends early, and if a new one start, always a reason it starts at level 1. Give me campaingS that go from level 15 to 20.
I start from level 3 partly for this reason. Also, it gives players more chance to be different, especially if two players are the same class, by level three there's plenty of other stuff that they might be differently, be it sub classes, spells, fighting styles, whatever.
@@tomgymer7719 okay, what is the upmost level to be expected in your campaigns? How common are the sessions? Starting at level 3, or even 1 is fine, if we play bi-weekly, and reach level 15. None of these ever happen. Noone has time every 2 weeks, and the campaign dies at level 4, 5 or 7. So no. If you cant guarantee to me that we will sit down every 2 weeks, or hell, even just once every month, and that we will reach the middle teens the very least, do no start your campaign at level 3. I have played enough at those levels, I hate it. I find it boring, everyone does 1 weapons attack 80% of the time, and I hate it for what it represents - the GM failed, and we are restarting, AGAIN.
@@texteel Well I play weekly, and we should reach level 15 at least, although I personally find 5-11 to be the best range for me as a player, although I know other people enjoy other levels. I'm sorry you've not found many lasting campaigns, that's always frustrating, but I've been in at least 3 campaigns that managed to meet weekly and reached high levels.
All of this is spot on! My successful and least successful sessions is because of these reasons! I learned a lot of this the hard way through the years of running games. This is all gold here that I hope other potential DMs dig up to use to make their game richer.
That thing with the diamond ring has some really nice story impact. Obviously it depends entirely on the personality of the woman, what actually happens between her and the players, the mood of your campaign, and other stuff like that, but my absolute immediate thought is "The woman is so distraught that she ends up committing suicide, but her anger keeps her alive as an immortal revenant who hunts the party down for eternity." You get a free recurring villain who you can power up as much as you want because she's fueled by sorrow and anger, and the party are already invested in. Those types of villains hard to make in the best of times, and normally take multiple sessions to build up (or you just have them kick the monk's pet dog), so having one ready made is a godsend.
"The woman is so distraught that she ends up committing suicide, but her anger keeps her alive as an immortal revenant who hunts the party down for eternity." Depending on how that's played that might be one of the traits of a bad DM -- voicing out-game displeasure with disproportionate or illogical in-game consequences. There's even a specific name for this behavior, courtesy of Knights of the Dinner Table: grudge monster.
The situation where it can happen at my table where I call for a roll and a 20 isn't enough would be in the case where I set a high-ish DC (e.g. 20), but the PC attempting the action has a score that doesn't allow for that result. I try to keep my PC abilities in front of me, but I have had the situation where I didn't realise the PC can't succeed (just to many things going on and me not referencing their stats before calling for the roll), they said they rolled a 19 and than I asked for the total and it was 18... Whooops, the DC was 20 so that PC would have failed with a 20...
In Best DM Trait Number 5: Excitement is balanced with roleplay, you mentioned that in movies and books, excitement is also balanced out with more relaxed moments. I think this also applies to a majority of music, a tool many DMs employ during their sessions. Off the top of my head, songs with more extreme excitement and relaxed moments are Toxicity and Chop Suey by SOAD, plenty Metallica songs, and most songs usually have less extreme flips between excitement and relaxed, such as The Middle by Jimmy Eat World. I can think of only very few songs that maintain a excitement for it’s majority (but on the flip side, their are plenty of songs that maintain a relaxed nature, slower love songs, etc, come to mind).
Great advice. I love that you're 50/50 as player and DM. I've never realized how critical my experience is as a player (Why oh why did I choose to play a monk?) for the game I am running as a DM. Can't wait for the next two videos in the series.
I think as a DM one needs to seek out where they can be a player and pick a class you have an issue with such as an illusionist or wild magic sorcerer (most DM dependent in my opinion) so that you can see what it is like on the other side. Great video Chris...
I think Pro-9 and 10 can be the hardest, for the same reason, if player's haven't come up with much for backstory or anything, and that's why it's so important to make sure you're all on the same page in what you want out of the campaign, so that if you as a DM want to do player driven subplots, you can find players who will work with you on that, in the same way that as a player if you wanted those subplots you want to find a DM who is open to that.
I think blades in the dark rpg system has a cool way of avoiding having to keep consistent house rules by having the mind-set that every situation is different; basically as long as the players know that what is true for one situation in one location with a set of characters won't be true elsewhere, and they're free to ask the dm what the current situations' parameters are, before choosing what they wanna do. It really does need that shift of mind-set and it does come at the cost of having to maybe balance parameters on the fly for the dm to make them feel nice for the player despite changing them all the time, but I really like it because not all house rules are both fun and relevant for all situations, and this flexibility feels so free-ing.
I've watched a lot of your videos and I've played a few of your builds. I love your content and it's nice to see your perspective on DMing. At this point I'm very curious to see you play. Have you thought about live streaming one of your home games?
Man, today I scared my players so much... with Kobolds. Level 7, 4 players and a cleric npc they hired. Group of ~30 Kobolds. There was a wizard with fireball, so they could wipe a lot of Kobolds in a single round... but no. I roleplayed the Kobolds as they are in lore: Fearless zealots of communism, they'd gladly die for their kin and god. They got so intimidated by my Kobolds (I didn't roll a single die) they payed 500 gold to pass the Kobolds without a fight. Best moment this year.
My current party started at level 1 and now is at level 14. We've been playing for about 2 years. Sometimes I wonder if they'd rather start a new game and change it up, but they seem to be enjoying the game. So who knows.
With con #6 I had 1 case that I really liked where the dm asked us to roll and it didn’t matter how well we rolled. Over most of the campaign our party was being bewitched by demons to believe we were fighting for our country when we were actually fighting against them, and every time we noticed a slight inconsistency we had to roll a wizdom save. Got a Nat 20 once and it still didn’t break it, but having to roll constantly and not knowing why added to the mystery about what was going on. Mostly I’d agree though, unless done quite artfully by a good dm for a very specific reason it’s a bad idea to ask for rolls that don’t matter
Regarding negative trait #9: I’d actually go as far as to say DMs should try to avoid nerfing PCs even _with_ prior discussion. The way I look at it, it’s better to buff an underpowered character rather than nerf one that may be too strong, within reason of course. I’m not saying we should go around buffing everything that’s not perfectly optimized, but it sure would be nice to play a Four Elements Monk that didn’t hold the party back, wouldn’t it?
I disagree. If you are an experienced DM you should warn your Players of terrible choices. If a class holds the group back, tell the player this specific class holds the group back. I mean you shouldnb't nerf or buff anything as a need to be a good DM. It is nice to do so , but especially unexperienced DM's should avoid it at all costs.
You just blew my mind , your advice are spot on ! Watched quite a few similar ones but this one covered most things good DM should do! I am really looking forward to part 2 .. i ll so share this to my DM
Great lists. I think I you hit on all the highlights and lowlights I'd have really wanted to see. It's funny how we tend to react more emotionally to "the bad". For some of the Good, I was nodding, "Yeah, that's great." When you got to Policing Alignment, I starting cursing said practice quietly. I hate the alignment police. 😆
Great list. Both pros and cons. Currently in a game none of the players are enjoying. The DM checked 7 of 10 “worst DM traits.” Now it’s just figuring out to casually share this with him lol
New Checks: Tent setting-up check Teathering Mount check Foddering Mount check Finding Firewood check (independently checked from "starting the fire" check. Because reasons) Securing Saddlebags check Unpacking Packmules check (wut? Ur party doesn't have pack mules? Didn'y you ever read "Let a Mule Do it For You" in TD? Newb!) Unrolling bedroll check Dousing Lamp check "Whose a good bird, whose a good bird"-ing Your Familiar check (Do they feel the love?) Trying to Fall to Sleep With All the Rolling Dice in the Background check ...
SmugLookingBarrel exactly. I had a DM who literally made the Rogue reroll for perception on every new trap even though he said “10 minutes later as you’re looking for traps” instead of just using the players previous roll. So the player had to roll 4 times and only passed 2. At this point it’s not rolling in anyway that happens to be beneficial, you’re just making a HP Tax. I could understand if it was a failure to undo the trap but no it’s just “You suddenly stop using your keen eye sight you previously had to notice traps”. 🤦🏻♂️ The worst part I think is the DM’s that do it are just like Chris said in the video, they’re very obvious about it. There’s no narrative focus about it or realism, it’s just what the DM wants versus what the Dice dictate.
I hate when the DM doesn’t lay out a good narrative of what our MEANINGFUL choices are in a situation. It’s hilarious that he will describe in great detail a room and different doors ect and each time we open one there is NOTHING inside. Dude I didn’t come here to role play opening useless doors for 30mins of this session lol. One of the best DM senses is to realize when the players are lost and confused IRL and make something happen that they have to react too!
very nice Guide! I hope the next parts ;) By the way, can we ever see you direct a one shot and share it with your channel? And more exciting, a game in which you use the god wizard :))))???, I think that as much as me, as the community would like to see it. Anyway, thank you very much for sharing these videos, it helps us a lot, we thank you very much
I know you said degrees of success but there are always degrees of failure and success. Rolling a 1 to pick the lock breaks the lock loudly whereas rolling a 20 is completely silent. Rolling a 1 may be you slipping and your tools clattering to the ground whereas a 20 may mean that you deftly pick the lock but it won’t budge. There should always be degrees in between.
For Con-10, I think what you can do to avoid Con-7 is say, this is how we'll do it this time, but I'll consider it after the session and let you know what we'll be doing going forward. I had this happen recently, a player cast cloud of daggers, and I wasn't sure if that should hurt the enemy on the turn it was cast, to save time on looking up a specific ruling, I said, ok, this session it will hurt them straight away, but I will get back to you guys with a final ruling before next session. And as it happened my final ruling was against that interpretation, and now we all know and can move forwards without being disappointed by stuff.
Regarding your no.1 Pet peeve: I am guilty of reminding players to behave within their character traits. However, its not something that I do as habit or in general, its something I do to 2 people I play with in particular because it actually improves the health of the experience for everyone, including them. These 2 guys have a frustrating habit of creating an interesting character, describing them thoughtfully to the party, getting everyone interested in playing with them....and then just falling into acting like themselves at the table, which isn't roleplaying. Other members of the party have confided in me their frustrations with rolepaying, and having one of these 2 players not reciprocate by instead engaging in one the following: Bro - speak, modern swearing, attention seeking behavior, doing things for shock value, metagaming, breaking the fourth wall, and being generally thoughtless. The worst instance of this was when our petite, female, soft spoken cleric who just wants to help the needy..... decided to slug an NPC in the face in full view of city guard because he (the player) decided that he didn't like the tone of the NPC. On his attack roll, he rolls a natural twenty, resulting in his tiny character breaking the nose of the NPC. She was then incarcerated. Needless to say, this set of events completely derailed what the party wanted to otherwise do. He was then irritated that his actions had these predictable consequences, as if myself and all the other people at the table were instead supposed to scream "WOO!" and chug more cheap beer like we were at a frat party! Everyone was irritated that he acted like a child looking for negative attention during a sensitive situation, and he himself wasn't happy that everyone else wasn't happy with his behavior. Ever since then, When these guys start swearing, acting like drunk bachelors, and not putting in the modest intellectual effort into RP, I remind them of who they are, and everyone at the table gets a look of relief on their faces when I do so. The players are free to take any direction they choose, and deal with the consequences, but sometimes they need to be reminded that when I ask them a question while we are playing, that I am asking the question to a female, half elf, light cleric, and NOT to a 29 year old, 21st century, human male, bachelor who is hanging out with friends on sunday during football season.
28:2 oh shit, that is partialy my mentality. I go into a session thinking "I am going to beat any potential poker faces", "I am going to figure out how to make them colectivly crackle up". Wait, this isn't what you meant?
As far as I'm concerned, the worst thing a DM can do is take events or feelings from outside the campaign into it, or vice versa. To use DnD as an outlet for things that need to be solved in the real world. For example, I've had a DM come to me and say that he wanted to punish one of the players that they suspected had sexually assaulted someone, so they were going to kill off their character in the game in an effort to get them to quit, so the DM asked me (who was playing a healing class at the time) not to heal their character in combat for this session. I've also had someone who was a player in my game that is about to become the DM tell another player in the game that the actions of their PC in my campaign (which were antagonistic towards the player's PC) would cost them in his campaign.
SmugLookingBarrel Thats just fucking crazy man. First off, if he thinks the guy sexually assaulted a women he should be getting the cops involved, not using the gaming table as a way to get rid of the person. 2nd off, the table isn’t a place for petty squabbles or social/equality issues to arise. My DM got mad at me because he made a gender neutral character and the character was evil (Literally turning people into Explosives) and was mad that my character wouldn’t respect the villains preferred gender pronoun. “I’m playing my character, I have no obligation to respect someone who is doing such vile things. If it’s pissing him, her, them off then I’m doing exactly what my character would do. This person doesn’t deserve my respect.”. It ultimately caused a massive issue at the table and we were able to get past it, but the gaming table isn’t a place where we should be trying to address politics, social issues, or anything else unless everyone agrees they want to do that.
Your final problem comes up all the time, particularly in Adventurers League, with the poorly worded Druid armor proficiencies. Per the PHB, druids “won’t” wear metal armor. This is a huge issue for lots of folks because it’s a role play restriction, not a mechanical restriction. Despite never using this option myself, the argument against it is truly infuriating.
Maybe this can be in Chris's upcoming video on the ten worst things players do :-). Any experienced player who has been in AL for more than five minutes knows that the druid metal armor rule is a problem. No system is perfect. Many if not most DMs sincerely feel that metal armor on a druid is angle shooting at best. Why would someone ever make a character like this and bring it to a public-play AL table? The DM is a volunteer who is trying to get the game started, entertain seven players, and have fun himself. Instead he is forced to deal with one player who has created this fraught situation. This behavior is disruptive and shows lack of respect for the DM. The rules for 5e are actually very good and 99% of character builds are clear and don't rely on really questionable rules. You don't need to build the other 1% for public play. To be clear I am not criticizing James for having and expressing a strong opinion about a character creation rule. I'm talking about a person who acts on that type of opinion even though he knows it is likely to put the DM in an uncomfortable position.
So I try really hard to not favor a PC. I give loot to the party and let them fight over it, I work everyone's backstory in, I try to be fair. But what about when only ONE PC has a fleshed out backstory? When they tell me about their character's rich backstory all the time, and I accidentally write an entire act of the campaign around it?
EDIT: Never mind, I found the other videos, they just aren't labelled as part of a series like this one is. This was a great video though I have to ask, where are the other two parts? Your advice has always been very good and unique compared to a lot of other RUclipsrs so it would be wonderful if you were to complete this series.
I'll have to disagree with your number 2 pick. Alignment is not subjective at all. As a matter of fact, what eats alignment is, is objectively defined in the player handbook. I'm not disagreeing with you that alignments are better out of the game. I actually agree with you on that, having alignment in the game is a problem. The problem actually comes down to players being taught at a young age that whatever they feel is good or bad, not what is simply good or bad qua human. But that is a philosophical issue which I won't get into here. Point is, society has bread subjectivity into people's morality, and having an objective moral code with in Dungeons & Dragons rubs people the wrong way, and most dungeon Master's are unable to deal with this, so it's better not to even have it in the game.
I would agree with the all your points when it comes to a good GM, except one. My players love the my stupid one off characters that have no point to the plot and make on the spot. lol
Obviously for #6 Too Many Dice Rolls, you’re talking about the DM prompting you, but just to throw it out there, when I DM, if my players ask to roll, I let them. Even if there’s no chance of success, I want them to have the freedom to try. It gives them engagement in the scenario.
Also, sometimes random rolls are good for newer players. Yes, you can easily succeed on this perception check, but what I’m actually doing is teaching you how to make ability checks before it actually matters.
My players like me as a gm, so I must be doing it right, but I have nothing stopping me from telling players what actions change their alignments. Its been a few campaigns since actually had to do anything about it, and that was due to unnecessary, but expedient, torture.
Guh. DM optimization is going too far, Treantmonk. Oh, "I can't choose a race other than human"? You and your love of the level 1 feat. "I can't roll for stats"? Come on, Treantmonk, you think this body came from point buy!?
Dungeons and Dragons is odd because if you think of it a couple of good ideas about the game and be embodied come from the game’s name. Dragons are memorable, powerful and beatable creatures that invoke imagination. Wining is hard and means risk but it is possible for special people. Dungeons are planned places that can have many starting places and many choices. It is up to those going though them as to where they go. They can have many endings but are fun. If you remember the name of the game then you can be well on your way to being a good DM.
I have been guilty of number nine on the bad side, though not to the extent of the example given. The time that comes to mind was 3.5E, a player (OP power gamer) made a character that to his credit, asked me about if a thing would be okay. I okay'ed it, but didn't fully grasp the extent until I saw it in play at the table. Free intimidate against any opponent he hits, and fear effects or some BS. I wasn't happy, but could justify it for most of the game and as a rule, if I can justify it, I can endure it. THEN he hit the great wyrm shadow dragon and I couldn't justify the tiny mortal scratching the dragon and driving it insane without magical influence. What to do in that situation?
Ah yes, fear builds in 3.5e Did that one myself. Campaing didn't last long, since it was mostly against humanoids and every encounter I'd scare everyone to death, making every attack suck.
Beware the trap of judging magical and non-magical characters using different standards. Some DMs will accept anything that's magic but closely scrutinize non-magical abilities for "realism". If your suspension of disbelief can accept a wizard who shoots fireballs out of his bare finger, then you can accept a rogue who moves and fights like the Green Arrow. In D&D many nonmagical abilities are intended to be superpowers that actual people cannot do. Not to say that this applies in your example, but the "without magial influence" part gave me pause.
I would agree with most everything here except maybe I would put alignment policing in the number 10 spot. I don't think there are any negative repercussions to changing alignment in 5E so why get too wrapped up about it? and some things, like the paladin oath, are there to force the player to play a certain way and players can't get too upset if a DM takes exception to their devotion paladin's murderhobo rampage through the local village.
The first half of this video is probably what I've liked most of all stuff I've seen from you. There are a few things on the second half I disagree with. Worst 9 should be dealt with at session zero, players should declare atleast to the GM what they have in mind long term, surprising especially an inexperienced GM with OP builds is not great. Worst 6, how do you deal with searching rooms in a dungeon? if you only roll where there are things to find .... Worst 2, Im more on yosharian's side.
God knows that I'm guilty of #1 and #2 on the worst list and, at the risk of sounding defensive and delusional, I need to disagree with you on this. A lot of people I know struggle with the role-playing aspect of the game and often end up playing themselves, which is fine if that is the premise and expectations that you set up from the get-go. #2 alignment should be there because it can help people with setting the frame within which they should be thinking if they want to step out of their own shoes and try playing a character that is different than themselves. I'm not even going to comment on a player stepping out of their alignment if it makes sense within the character they are playing. But if they constantly playing out of character the character they set up I will talk to them about it (privately if possible) before I start implementing in game consequences for their actions #1 similarly to #2 it will depend on the reasoning behind the changes. If the generally peaceful cleric starts lashing out at people because he is having a crisis of faith, that is perfectly fine character development and something the rest of the party can figure out and avr some powerful role-playing moments. However if the person playing the character is having a bad day and they are taking it out on the group I think it is DMs responsibility to step in Clearly, trying to play PC characters instead of players isn't cool, I just don't think it is as black and white or as universal as you presented it. It is you personal opinion and these are your pet peeves so it is definitely understandable, but I really don't think these are deserving of #1-2 sports, especially considering some of the other types of behaviors on the list
Mostly awesome. But I disagree with the very first one (backgrounds), not on principle but on reality. In principle, I'd agree with you 100%. Would... But the reality I've seen is that EVERY SINGLE TIME a player has an intricate backstory, it goes like this, "I'm a level 1 who is an epic hero and who is the most amazing everything, and who has every advantage conceivable, and is destined to be the star of every single everything. " Every. Single. Time. I actually put this one 100% on the player. If you want your backstory to matter, YOU (the player) need to come up with a backstory that matters to the campaign. If it's a wilderness adventure, those troubadours, treasure hunters, trappers and such are easy to weave in. If you want your guy to be the ambitious merchant, it's on you as a player to figure out how that works. I'm not going to change a campaign just because a player refuses to get on board. If this were a rare or even occasional problem, I might take a different stance. But in my experience, every single player with a detailed backstory fits this scenario.
I normally make a worldbuilding doc for my campaigns so the payers know what all of the deities are, what different cultures there are, what type of technology there is, and I also put my character generation rules in there. I always say that, with the exception of the chargen rules, the entire doccument is optional reading. I am not going to test them on it, and if the players don't know about something that suddenly becomes important, I'm more than happy to explain it to them if they ask, or not explain it if they can't be bothered to know. One of the things that I ALWAYS put in the chargen section though is a bit about backstories, and there is ALWAYS a line in there saying something along the lines of "Your character cannot have done any combat feats greater than defeating a nest of giant spiders, probably with help." It stops them saying that they defeated a troll single handed when they were 10, or they were the strongest knight in the entire army before they were thrown out, and that also has ripple on effects to their other backstory elements. I find that I get less players who are already claiming to be major heroes, on anything more than a local level, and whilst it doesn't wipe out the terrible backstory element that is the prophecy, those prophecies tend to be smaller scale and vaguer, so I can do more to attempt to match them.
Since that ... does not match my experience at all, I'm now wondering about the common link in all your experiences. I do agree that anytime I see a backstory that's ... presented as a fait-accompli and not as the start of a discussion, I've had a fairly long expectations setting session... ("No, I didn't read the Eberon fictional materials, and do not care about their canon"), but I've had a lot of different players who have detailed backstories that are still backstories and not Mary Sue FanFic. And ... no, the backstory doesn't need to fit the campaign ... as long as the player is aware of both and won't be surprised when it doesn't fit. This is a campaign themed around Elven Politics and you're a Gnoll? Sure... let's talk about how you go to the start, and how'd you expect that to work. (let me figure out what parts of my campaign suddenly need editing... it turns out Gnolls have a different backstory here, and Lord Hanklefingers has a long history of hiring out to a local clan for mercenaries...)
On your bad #2 I respectfully disagree with you. And I'll cite your bad #1 example as my reasoning. Too often, I've had players who lie and double cross "the poor widow" who supposedly are LG. I think we can both agree that breaking your word and stealing from a helpless widow are neither lawful nor good actions. I don't so much "police" my players alignment (I am also glad it's no longer mechanics tied) but I let them know offline "Hey, when you first made your PC you put down Lawful Good, but the way you've been playing your PC lately (killing babies, kicking puppies, etc) would be considered Chaotic Evil by the average person in this world." That being said, the only time alignment is ever a factor is at session zero where I say (with few caveats) no Evil PCs, and I wait to see if any future problem player chooses "CN"...
I have to disagree with your tip for preparation. I’m a big proponent of the Sly Flourish “Lazy Dungeon Master” approach. I’m not saying totally wing it but keep your preparation to a minimum. So many of the other problems on this list are a direct result of the DM spending a lot of time prepping and then becoming emotionally attached to their work. That’s why they’re railroading you, or telling you how to play your PC’s alignment, or nerfing your abilities, or becoming adversarial in encounters.
I'd argue that preparation isn't the problem there; It's poor preparation and skewed expectations. Good preparation is never bad because it includes willingness to deviate, and ease of pivoting. Bad preparation would result in the scenarios you described, surely.
Alignment argument in other words: "I love 5e because it doesn't have classes. Classes are so oppressive. If I have a player who's a Cleric and they want to pick a lock, they should be able to pick the lock. It cuts down on my fun if you tell me 'You're a Cleric not a Rogue'. Wah! I should be able to do whatever, to BE my character. Classes are so oppressive!" UNSUB
But that IS the argument. There is a reason that trickery Clerics exist. People thought that they wanted a cleric that could pick locks, so they made a class that could. Your implied argument is that since, by default, Clerics can't pick locks, there should be no way for them to pick locks. And that's ridiculous. To go back to the alignment point, yes, I could play an evil character that does good things or good character that does evil things, but there must be justification.
The only thing I disagree with is your finality with regards to alignment. If a character murders children and wants to write lawful good of their sheet, sure I can let them, but that's not a good aligned character. So when they may travel to Celestia and they start feeling bad because they are evil and they start complaining that their sheet says lawful good, it's a problem. This is an extreme example but it's to contrast the finality of your statement. As a DM, I decide on many things, including what's considered good or evil, lawful or chaotic in the world I'm running. I mustn't dictate alignment as a god, but the players can't just write whatever they want and expect that to hold true either. Like everything else in dnd, discussing it and being honest and consistent is the key, in my opinion
I've run some games where alignment is a marker of something in the backstory, and not actually related to how someone acts, except possibly in a global statistical way. You have some celestial blood in you, so you're lawful good. You detect as good, you are impacted by games rules as if you're good... but it doesn't bind your actions in any way. And if you go to some higher plane of goodness, you'll can still be chucked out for being a jerk by the entities in it. In such games, I tend to suggest player characters are generally unaligned unless they wish the alignment to be one of their hooks. Eberron, specifically, can lend itself to this approach.
One of the most obnoxious things I've seen DMs do, and it's more than a handful of them, is how they don't assume that players don't take common-sense actions. For example "I search the bedroom, I didn't see anything even with a Perception 23?" "You didn't say you were searching the dressers."
Or my recurring favorite: "You don't have enough time to cast Mage Armor, I'm not going to let you start out with it. Even though you had plenty of time between hearing there were bandits in the town square and actually heading downstairs to take care of it."
Absolutely agreed with you, this is one of the most off-putting things I have experienced. If they wanted to hear specific description of search they should ask "so what are you searching for and where exactly?"
You need to tell where are you searching, there's literally an example in the PHB that mentions it. There are a plentory of motives for that, like the fact that Interacting or not with some objects may trigger something (e.g. trap).
For DMs that do not complete their campaigns for some reason i have some advice. Do a timeskip, let the players role some dice and together determine what the characters have done during the time skip. Then do 1 climactic oneshot session ending the campaign.
that works, when skipping levels from ~8 to ~13.
When the PCs are level 5 at most, they are too weak for timeskip, they cannot get their will across the hordes of nobles and factions that will just use them.
@@texteel still works for lower levels. Your climactic ending is just different. Stuff like a heist, preventing an assasination or dismantiling the criminal organisation can be lower level campaign ending sessions. And if these are not satisfactory you can also add levels to the characters when you timeskip. Its not perfect and certainly not a fix all. But its better then having a campaign end without an ending
I was the pilot in a star wars game 20 years ago :) . The whole party was on board my ship while I was trying to escape from a bunch of imperial Tie fighters on a planet. On the most crucial moment I rolled my pool of dice in order to resolve the situation doing a crazy manoeuvre! All the dices rolled 1s... I killed the whole party... :(
one caveat to #1 Worst:
When a player is new, it is ok to outline options.
"So, Benjin, you are standing in the kitchens, the guards have left your side with instructions, 'You had better be here when we get back!' You suspect you will have several minutes before they return. What would you like to do?"
Uh, I dunno.
"Your team's plan was to find a discrete entrance. Would you like to don a disguise? Slink away when none of the scullery maids are watching? Would you like to hit up one of the maids to see if she knows of a back door? Or, do you have something else up your sleeve?"
The three gnolls were just on a sightseeing tour when they encountered...."a band of ruffians. It seems like a motley assortment randomly thrown together. There's a human, a halfling, a dwarf, and a half-elf. They stare at you and then pounce. They have surprise and come at you with all they've got!"
The gnolls, stunned, try to defend themselves as best they can, but are hacked down mercilessly (or blasted mercilessly. Anyhow there's no quarter given, and, to be fair, no quarter asked - as far as the gnolls know, this band of scruffy ruffians are a bunch of bloodthirsty brigands).
Meanwhile, elsewhere, the families of the three gnolls all look forward for their return, and the stories they might tell. They wait, and wait. And wait. And wait. Soon it becomes clear their loved ones are not coming back. The question is: Who is going to tell *them* the thread that integrates things into the overall story? Who?
Many such cases.
I feel like you have not really read the lore about gnolls... gnolls don't have families or loved ones, or compassion, they only think about one thing, feeding the endless hunger of Yeenoghu, they are really more like demons than humanoids.
@@Klaital1 Now the gnolls feel bad since you "otherized" them. I'll leave it to you to tell their families in person.
Klaital1 Sure, that’s the Forgotten Realms lore, but bear in mind that the lore on Gnolls, or anything else for that matter, can vary wildly from setting to setting.
Strongly disagree that the DM shouldn't pay attention to alignment. But: I agree that 'policing' it is the wrong approach.
Agreed. Often times, the DM needs to call out a player for acting entirely out of alignment (in a respectful way, of course). Do I think they shouldn't allow something? Heck, no. but, if a chaotic good bard is constantly acting in a lawful manner, they certainly would begin to lose some of their less savory contacts' trust. A Neutral Good cleric of Chauntea goes all murderhobo? Then yes, they're going to need to lose some of their goddess' powers. Alignment should never govern a player's options, but their options should have consequences.
Policing alignment I agree to a certain extent. But if a good aligned cleric or Paladin starts murder hoboing or committing crimes I think it’s reasonable for the characters deity to withdraw their divine magic. The character is basically his or her deity’s standard bearer as such should represent the values of said deity.
A basic backstory even if not shared, is essential for role-playing.
You need to ask players “Who are you, why are you, and what do you want?
The feeling of risk is extremely important. I'm glad you talked about this. I think it's an uncommon point in these types of videos.
Going along with #7, a theme isn't just an aesthetic, it's a collection of ideas that ties an aesthetic together. Themes aren't just 'horror' or 'war story', it's a persistent and recurring idea that occurs within the story, such as 'how culpable are you for making wrong decisions on incomplete information' or 'what does it mean when you fail a coming-of-age ceremony' or 'what would you be willing to do to protect your loved ones' or 'are there times when hypocrisy is a virtue and consistency is a vice'?
When you're putting together a campaign that's supposed to be memorable, it's not enough to go 'I want to have a badass war campaign where people are fighting a guerilla war against a corrupt government'. There needs to be a theme to tie those scenes together, such as, 'how much should someone morally compromise to win a war' where you have moments such as whether you should allow looting to prevent a mutiny or whether you should forgive some of the more corrupt nobles willing to support your cause.
Thank you.
"What can you stand on when everything is treachery?"
"How does devastation affect a land and a people?"
"Power Corrupts"
"What is the price for victory?"
All can make decent themes for a D&D game. Or another game. :)
I’ve recently been trying to run a series of one page adventures. Ive been stringing them together and filling in the gaps to make a campaign.
Last one page adventure I wasn’t aware of how potent an intellect devourer. It was written to explode out of the skull of one of the gnome that had been captured by grim locks.
The intellect devourer immediately targeted/stunned the barbarian, who was examining the sickly gnome. upon reading the rest of the features on that turn, I immediately looked at the rest of the party and told them they had 1 round to kill this thing right now or they’re fucked.
I don’t know if that was the right thing to do, but there was a definite change in the tension of the room. No one asked me any meta questions or anything, they just kept roleplaying.
The resistance to non magical weapon attacks almost had it survive, and it was only a CR 2 creature.
We left off with them stuck in a tower trying to figure out what to do with a barbarian whose basically in a coma with 0 intellect.
Greater Restoration is the only thing that works. ID's are the worst designed creature in the game.
pro#3 is the rarest. That is why I get bored of doing nothing at levels 1-3. Because its always those levels. There is always a reason why it ends early, and if a new one start, always a reason it starts at level 1.
Give me campaingS that go from level 15 to 20.
I start from level 3 partly for this reason. Also, it gives players more chance to be different, especially if two players are the same class, by level three there's plenty of other stuff that they might be differently, be it sub classes, spells, fighting styles, whatever.
@@tomgymer7719 okay, what is the upmost level to be expected in your campaigns? How common are the sessions?
Starting at level 3, or even 1 is fine, if we play bi-weekly, and reach level 15.
None of these ever happen. Noone has time every 2 weeks, and the campaign dies at level 4, 5 or 7.
So no.
If you cant guarantee to me that we will sit down every 2 weeks, or hell, even just once every month, and that we will reach the middle teens the very least, do no start your campaign at level 3.
I have played enough at those levels, I hate it. I find it boring, everyone does 1 weapons attack 80% of the time, and I hate it for what it represents - the GM failed, and we are restarting, AGAIN.
texteel i prefer starting around lvl 5. We’re lvl 17 now, it is great fun
@@ChristianW1975 I am glad to hear you are having fun.
I am also glad to hear there are campaigns out there that go that far
@@texteel Well I play weekly, and we should reach level 15 at least, although I personally find 5-11 to be the best range for me as a player, although I know other people enjoy other levels. I'm sorry you've not found many lasting campaigns, that's always frustrating, but I've been in at least 3 campaigns that managed to meet weekly and reached high levels.
All of this is spot on! My successful and least successful sessions is because of these reasons! I learned a lot of this the hard way through the years of running games. This is all gold here that I hope other potential DMs dig up to use to make their game richer.
That thing with the diamond ring has some really nice story impact. Obviously it depends entirely on the personality of the woman, what actually happens between her and the players, the mood of your campaign, and other stuff like that, but my absolute immediate thought is "The woman is so distraught that she ends up committing suicide, but her anger keeps her alive as an immortal revenant who hunts the party down for eternity."
You get a free recurring villain who you can power up as much as you want because she's fueled by sorrow and anger, and the party are already invested in. Those types of villains hard to make in the best of times, and normally take multiple sessions to build up (or you just have them kick the monk's pet dog), so having one ready made is a godsend.
"The woman is so distraught that she ends up committing suicide, but her anger keeps her alive as an immortal revenant who hunts the party down for eternity."
Depending on how that's played that might be one of the traits of a bad DM -- voicing out-game displeasure with disproportionate or illogical in-game consequences. There's even a specific name for this behavior, courtesy of Knights of the Dinner Table: grudge monster.
The situation where it can happen at my table where I call for a roll and a 20 isn't enough would be in the case where I set a high-ish DC (e.g. 20), but the PC attempting the action has a score that doesn't allow for that result. I try to keep my PC abilities in front of me, but I have had the situation where I didn't realise the PC can't succeed (just to many things going on and me not referencing their stats before calling for the roll), they said they rolled a 19 and than I asked for the total and it was 18... Whooops, the DC was 20 so that PC would have failed with a 20...
In Best DM Trait Number 5: Excitement is balanced with roleplay, you mentioned that in movies and books, excitement is also balanced out with more relaxed moments. I think this also applies to a majority of music, a tool many DMs employ during their sessions. Off the top of my head, songs with more extreme excitement and relaxed moments are Toxicity and Chop Suey by SOAD, plenty Metallica songs, and most songs usually have less extreme flips between excitement and relaxed, such as The Middle by Jimmy Eat World. I can think of only very few songs that maintain a excitement for it’s majority (but on the flip side, their are plenty of songs that maintain a relaxed nature, slower love songs, etc, come to mind).
Great advice. I love that you're 50/50 as player and DM. I've never realized how critical my experience is as a player (Why oh why did I choose to play a monk?) for the game I am running as a DM. Can't wait for the next two videos in the series.
I think as a DM one needs to seek out where they can be a player and pick a class you have an issue with such as an illusionist or wild magic sorcerer (most DM dependent in my opinion) so that you can see what it is like on the other side. Great video Chris...
Ya seem like a fantastic DM. Your video mostly reinforces my gut instincts as a very, very new DM. I'll take some lessons here to heart.
I think Pro-9 and 10 can be the hardest, for the same reason, if player's haven't come up with much for backstory or anything, and that's why it's so important to make sure you're all on the same page in what you want out of the campaign, so that if you as a DM want to do player driven subplots, you can find players who will work with you on that, in the same way that as a player if you wanted those subplots you want to find a DM who is open to that.
I think blades in the dark rpg system has a cool way of avoiding having to keep consistent house rules by having the mind-set that every situation is different; basically as long as the players know that what is true for one situation in one location with a set of characters won't be true elsewhere, and they're free to ask the dm what the current situations' parameters are, before choosing what they wanna do. It really does need that shift of mind-set and it does come at the cost of having to maybe balance parameters on the fly for the dm to make them feel nice for the player despite changing them all the time, but I really like it because not all house rules are both fun and relevant for all situations, and this flexibility feels so free-ing.
This is the most useful DM habits video I've watched yet! I'm saving this for later reference :)
Thankyou for you insight. Cant wait for part 2 😃
#6, Treantmonk's background gives away that DM's have dice that go higher than 20...
I've watched a lot of your videos and I've played a few of your builds. I love your content and it's nice to see your perspective on DMing. At this point I'm very curious to see you play. Have you thought about live streaming one of your home games?
Man, today I scared my players so much... with Kobolds. Level 7, 4 players and a cleric npc they hired. Group of ~30 Kobolds. There was a wizard with fireball, so they could wipe a lot of Kobolds in a single round... but no. I roleplayed the Kobolds as they are in lore: Fearless zealots of communism, they'd gladly die for their kin and god. They got so intimidated by my Kobolds (I didn't roll a single die) they payed 500 gold to pass the Kobolds without a fight.
Best moment this year.
My current party started at level 1 and now is at level 14. We've been playing for about 2 years. Sometimes I wonder if they'd rather start a new game and change it up, but they seem to be enjoying the game. So who knows.
With con #6 I had 1 case that I really liked where the dm asked us to roll and it didn’t matter how well we rolled. Over most of the campaign our party was being bewitched by demons to believe we were fighting for our country when we were actually fighting against them, and every time we noticed a slight inconsistency we had to roll a wizdom save. Got a Nat 20 once and it still didn’t break it, but having to roll constantly and not knowing why added to the mystery about what was going on. Mostly I’d agree though, unless done quite artfully by a good dm for a very specific reason it’s a bad idea to ask for rolls that don’t matter
Regarding negative trait #9: I’d actually go as far as to say DMs should try to avoid nerfing PCs even _with_ prior discussion. The way I look at it, it’s better to buff an underpowered character rather than nerf one that may be too strong, within reason of course. I’m not saying we should go around buffing everything that’s not perfectly optimized, but it sure would be nice to play a Four Elements Monk that didn’t hold the party back, wouldn’t it?
I disagree. If you are an experienced DM you should warn your Players of terrible choices. If a class holds the group back, tell the player this specific class holds the group back. I mean you shouldnb't nerf or buff anything as a need to be a good DM. It is nice to do so , but especially unexperienced DM's should avoid it at all costs.
Great lists; great start. Looking forward to the next two videos.
Nobody cares about your alignment until that talisman of pure good starts to burn a hole in your pocket :P
You just blew my mind , your advice are spot on ! Watched quite a few similar ones but this one covered most things good DM should do! I am really looking forward to part 2 .. i ll so share this to my DM
Wort Trait #6 is something that my players love doing for themselves... I always tell them to only roll when I ask them to but they just ignore it
Great lists. I think I you hit on all the highlights and lowlights I'd have really wanted to see.
It's funny how we tend to react more emotionally to "the bad". For some of the Good, I was nodding, "Yeah, that's great." When you got to Policing Alignment, I starting cursing said practice quietly. I hate the alignment police. 😆
Great list. Both pros and cons. Currently in a game none of the players are enjoying. The DM checked 7 of 10 “worst DM traits.” Now it’s just figuring out to casually share this with him lol
At that point, it might be better to just stop playing.
New Checks:
Tent setting-up check
Teathering Mount check
Foddering Mount check
Finding Firewood check (independently checked from "starting the fire" check. Because reasons)
Securing Saddlebags check
Unpacking Packmules check (wut? Ur party doesn't have pack mules? Didn'y you ever read "Let a Mule Do it For You" in TD? Newb!)
Unrolling bedroll check
Dousing Lamp check
"Whose a good bird, whose a good bird"-ing Your Familiar check (Do they feel the love?)
Trying to Fall to Sleep With All the Rolling Dice in the Background check
...
Honestly, I believe that any DM who does this is fishing for natural 1s from the players, so that they can add complications
SmugLookingBarrel exactly. I had a DM who literally made the Rogue reroll for perception on every new trap even though he said “10 minutes later as you’re looking for traps” instead of just using the players previous roll. So the player had to roll 4 times and only passed 2. At this point it’s not rolling in anyway that happens to be beneficial, you’re just making a HP Tax. I could understand if it was a failure to undo the trap but no it’s just “You suddenly stop using your keen eye sight you previously had to notice traps”. 🤦🏻♂️
The worst part I think is the DM’s that do it are just like Chris said in the video, they’re very obvious about it. There’s no narrative focus about it or realism, it’s just what the DM wants versus what the Dice dictate.
I hate when the DM doesn’t lay out a good narrative of what our MEANINGFUL choices are in a situation. It’s hilarious that he will describe in great detail a room and different doors ect and each time we open one there is NOTHING inside. Dude I didn’t come here to role play opening useless doors for 30mins of this session lol. One of the best DM senses is to realize when the players are lost and confused IRL and make something happen that they have to react too!
very nice Guide! I hope the next parts ;) By the way, can we ever see you direct a one shot and share it with your channel? And more exciting, a game in which you use the god wizard :))))???, I think that as much as me, as the community would like to see it. Anyway, thank you very much for sharing these videos, it helps us a lot, we thank you very much
Maybe at some point if the archmage patrons participating all agree. Can't do it this month as the music I'm using would get the vid blocked 100%
Thanks, one of my favorite videos, love all the points.
I know you said degrees of success but there are always degrees of failure and success. Rolling a 1 to pick the lock breaks the lock loudly whereas rolling a 20 is completely silent. Rolling a 1 may be you slipping and your tools clattering to the ground whereas a 20 may mean that you deftly pick the lock but it won’t budge.
There should always be degrees in between.
For Con-10, I think what you can do to avoid Con-7 is say, this is how we'll do it this time, but I'll consider it after the session and let you know what we'll be doing going forward. I had this happen recently, a player cast cloud of daggers, and I wasn't sure if that should hurt the enemy on the turn it was cast, to save time on looking up a specific ruling, I said, ok, this session it will hurt them straight away, but I will get back to you guys with a final ruling before next session. And as it happened my final ruling was against that interpretation, and now we all know and can move forwards without being disappointed by stuff.
Regarding your no.1 Pet peeve: I am guilty of reminding players to behave within their character traits. However, its not something that I do as habit or in general, its something I do to 2 people I play with in particular because it actually improves the health of the experience for everyone, including them. These 2 guys have a frustrating habit of creating an interesting character, describing them thoughtfully to the party, getting everyone interested in playing with them....and then just falling into acting like themselves at the table, which isn't roleplaying. Other members of the party have confided in me their frustrations with rolepaying, and having one of these 2 players not reciprocate by instead engaging in one the following: Bro - speak, modern swearing, attention seeking behavior, doing things for shock value, metagaming, breaking the fourth wall, and being generally thoughtless. The worst instance of this was when our petite, female, soft spoken cleric who just wants to help the needy..... decided to slug an NPC in the face in full view of city guard because he (the player) decided that he didn't like the tone of the NPC. On his attack roll, he rolls a natural twenty, resulting in his tiny character breaking the nose of the NPC. She was then incarcerated. Needless to say, this set of events completely derailed what the party wanted to otherwise do. He was then irritated that his actions had these predictable consequences, as if myself and all the other people at the table were instead supposed to scream "WOO!" and chug more cheap beer like we were at a frat party! Everyone was irritated that he acted like a child looking for negative attention during a sensitive situation, and he himself wasn't happy that everyone else wasn't happy with his behavior. Ever since then, When these guys start swearing, acting like drunk bachelors, and not putting in the modest intellectual effort into RP, I remind them of who they are, and everyone at the table gets a look of relief on their faces when I do so. The players are free to take any direction they choose, and deal with the consequences, but sometimes they need to be reminded that when I ask them a question while we are playing, that I am asking the question to a female, half elf, light cleric, and NOT to a 29 year old, 21st century, human male, bachelor who is hanging out with friends on sunday during football season.
28:2 oh shit, that is partialy my mentality. I go into a session thinking "I am going to beat any potential poker faces", "I am going to figure out how to make them colectivly crackle up". Wait, this isn't what you meant?
As far as I'm concerned, the worst thing a DM can do is take events or feelings from outside the campaign into it, or vice versa. To use DnD as an outlet for things that need to be solved in the real world. For example, I've had a DM come to me and say that he wanted to punish one of the players that they suspected had sexually assaulted someone, so they were going to kill off their character in the game in an effort to get them to quit, so the DM asked me (who was playing a healing class at the time) not to heal their character in combat for this session. I've also had someone who was a player in my game that is about to become the DM tell another player in the game that the actions of their PC in my campaign (which were antagonistic towards the player's PC) would cost them in his campaign.
SmugLookingBarrel Thats just fucking crazy man. First off, if he thinks the guy sexually assaulted a women he should be getting the cops involved, not using the gaming table as a way to get rid of the person. 2nd off, the table isn’t a place for petty squabbles or social/equality issues to arise.
My DM got mad at me because he made a gender neutral character and the character was evil (Literally turning people into Explosives) and was mad that my character wouldn’t respect the villains preferred gender pronoun. “I’m playing my character, I have no obligation to respect someone who is doing such vile things. If it’s pissing him, her, them off then I’m doing exactly what my character would do. This person doesn’t deserve my respect.”. It ultimately caused a massive issue at the table and we were able to get past it, but the gaming table isn’t a place where we should be trying to address politics, social issues, or anything else unless everyone agrees they want to do that.
Your final problem comes up all the time, particularly in Adventurers League, with the poorly worded Druid armor proficiencies. Per the PHB, druids “won’t” wear metal armor. This is a huge issue for lots of folks because it’s a role play restriction, not a mechanical restriction. Despite never using this option myself, the argument against it is truly infuriating.
Maybe this can be in Chris's upcoming video on the ten worst things players do :-).
Any experienced player who has been in AL for more than five minutes knows that the druid metal armor rule is a problem. No system is perfect. Many if not most DMs sincerely feel that metal armor on a druid is angle shooting at best.
Why would someone ever make a character like this and bring it to a public-play AL table? The DM is a volunteer who is trying to get the game started, entertain seven players, and have fun himself. Instead he is forced to deal with one player who has created this fraught situation. This behavior is disruptive and shows lack of respect for the DM.
The rules for 5e are actually very good and 99% of character builds are clear and don't rely on really questionable rules. You don't need to build the other 1% for public play.
To be clear I am not criticizing James for having and expressing a strong opinion about a character creation rule. I'm talking about a person who acts on that type of opinion even though he knows it is likely to put the DM in an uncomfortable position.
So I try really hard to not favor a PC. I give loot to the party and let them fight over it, I work everyone's backstory in, I try to be fair. But what about when only ONE PC has a fleshed out backstory? When they tell me about their character's rich backstory all the time, and I accidentally write an entire act of the campaign around it?
I don't think including a backstory is favoritism if you make sure everyone can be involved in the act.
EDIT: Never mind, I found the other videos, they just aren't labelled as part of a series like this one is.
This was a great video though I have to ask, where are the other two parts? Your advice has always been very good and unique compared to a lot of other RUclipsrs so it would be wonderful if you were to complete this series.
Excellent, with excellent examples
I'll have to disagree with your number 2 pick.
Alignment is not subjective at all. As a matter of fact, what eats alignment is, is objectively defined in the player handbook.
I'm not disagreeing with you that alignments are better out of the game. I actually agree with you on that, having alignment in the game is a problem.
The problem actually comes down to players being taught at a young age that whatever they feel is good or bad, not what is simply good or bad qua human. But that is a philosophical issue which I won't get into here.
Point is, society has bread subjectivity into people's morality, and having an objective moral code with in Dungeons & Dragons rubs people the wrong way, and most dungeon Master's are unable to deal with this, so it's better not to even have it in the game.
I would agree with the all your points when it comes to a good GM, except one. My players love the my stupid one off characters that have no point to the plot and make on the spot. lol
Obviously for #6 Too Many Dice Rolls, you’re talking about the DM prompting you, but just to throw it out there, when I DM, if my players ask to roll, I let them. Even if there’s no chance of success, I want them to have the freedom to try. It gives them engagement in the scenario.
Also, sometimes random rolls are good for newer players. Yes, you can easily succeed on this perception check, but what I’m actually doing is teaching you how to make ability checks before it actually matters.
just commenting on worst traits #9, I only ever makes adjustments, up or down, out of session, after talking to the player(s) involved
My players like me as a gm, so I must be doing it right, but I have nothing stopping me from telling players what actions change their alignments. Its been a few campaigns since actually had to do anything about it, and that was due to unnecessary, but expedient, torture.
26:67 I have DMPC's but there only there to do shit to tedious for the player to care about. Like maintaining a ship.
Guh. DM optimization is going too far, Treantmonk. Oh, "I can't choose a race other than human"? You and your love of the level 1 feat. "I can't roll for stats"? Come on, Treantmonk, you think this body came from point buy!?
Dungeons and Dragons is odd because if you think of it a couple of good ideas about the game and be embodied come from the game’s name.
Dragons are memorable, powerful and beatable creatures that invoke imagination. Wining is hard and means risk but it is possible for special people.
Dungeons are planned places that can have many starting places and many choices. It is up to those going though them as to where they go. They can have many endings but are fun.
If you remember the name of the game then you can be well on your way to being a good DM.
I have been guilty of number nine on the bad side, though not to the extent of the example given.
The time that comes to mind was 3.5E, a player (OP power gamer) made a character that to his credit, asked me about if a thing would be okay. I okay'ed it, but didn't fully grasp the extent until I saw it in play at the table. Free intimidate against any opponent he hits, and fear effects or some BS. I wasn't happy, but could justify it for most of the game and as a rule, if I can justify it, I can endure it. THEN he hit the great wyrm shadow dragon and I couldn't justify the tiny mortal scratching the dragon and driving it insane without magical influence. What to do in that situation?
Ah yes, fear builds in 3.5e
Did that one myself. Campaing didn't last long, since it was mostly against humanoids and every encounter I'd scare everyone to death, making every attack suck.
Beware the trap of judging magical and non-magical characters using different standards. Some DMs will accept anything that's magic but closely scrutinize non-magical abilities for "realism".
If your suspension of disbelief can accept a wizard who shoots fireballs out of his bare finger, then you can accept a rogue who moves and fights like the Green Arrow. In D&D many nonmagical abilities are intended to be superpowers that actual people cannot do.
Not to say that this applies in your example, but the "without magial influence" part gave me pause.
I would agree with most everything here except maybe I would put alignment policing in the number 10 spot. I don't think there are any negative repercussions to changing alignment in 5E so why get too wrapped up about it? and some things, like the paladin oath, are there to force the player to play a certain way and players can't get too upset if a DM takes exception to their devotion paladin's murderhobo rampage through the local village.
Or the DM could not "force the player to play a certain way" and empower the players to choose their own destinies.
Hmm is the "Are you sure about that?" A good thing in your opinion or do you consider it a diet "you shouldnt do that"?
25:48 we sing Limp Bizkit
Thank you.
The first half of this video is probably what I've liked most of all stuff I've seen from you.
There are a few things on the second half I disagree with.
Worst 9 should be dealt with at session zero, players should declare atleast to the GM what they have in mind long term, surprising especially an inexperienced GM with OP builds is not great.
Worst 6, how do you deal with searching rooms in a dungeon? if you only roll where there are things to find ....
Worst 2, Im more on yosharian's side.
This has become a very long week.
God knows that I'm guilty of #1 and #2 on the worst list and, at the risk of sounding defensive and delusional, I need to disagree with you on this.
A lot of people I know struggle with the role-playing aspect of the game and often end up playing themselves, which is fine if that is the premise and expectations that you set up from the get-go.
#2 alignment should be there because it can help people with setting the frame within which they should be thinking if they want to step out of their own shoes and try playing a character that is different than themselves. I'm not even going to comment on a player stepping out of their alignment if it makes sense within the character they are playing. But if they constantly playing out of character the character they set up I will talk to them about it (privately if possible) before I start implementing in game consequences for their actions
#1 similarly to #2 it will depend on the reasoning behind the changes. If the generally peaceful cleric starts lashing out at people because he is having a crisis of faith, that is perfectly fine character development and something the rest of the party can figure out and avr some powerful role-playing moments. However if the person playing the character is having a bad day and they are taking it out on the group I think it is DMs responsibility to step in
Clearly, trying to play PC characters instead of players isn't cool, I just don't think it is as black and white or as universal as you presented it. It is you personal opinion and these are your pet peeves so it is definitely understandable, but I really don't think these are deserving of #1-2 sports, especially considering some of the other types of behaviors on the list
Mostly awesome. But I disagree with the very first one (backgrounds), not on principle but on reality.
In principle, I'd agree with you 100%. Would...
But the reality I've seen is that EVERY SINGLE TIME a player has an intricate backstory, it goes like this, "I'm a level 1 who is an epic hero and who is the most amazing everything, and who has every advantage conceivable, and is destined to be the star of every single everything. "
Every. Single. Time.
I actually put this one 100% on the player. If you want your backstory to matter, YOU (the player) need to come up with a backstory that matters to the campaign. If it's a wilderness adventure, those troubadours, treasure hunters, trappers and such are easy to weave in. If you want your guy to be the ambitious merchant, it's on you as a player to figure out how that works. I'm not going to change a campaign just because a player refuses to get on board.
If this were a rare or even occasional problem, I might take a different stance. But in my experience, every single player with a detailed backstory fits this scenario.
I normally make a worldbuilding doc for my campaigns so the payers know what all of the deities are, what different cultures there are, what type of technology there is, and I also put my character generation rules in there.
I always say that, with the exception of the chargen rules, the entire doccument is optional reading. I am not going to test them on it, and if the players don't know about something that suddenly becomes important, I'm more than happy to explain it to them if they ask, or not explain it if they can't be bothered to know.
One of the things that I ALWAYS put in the chargen section though is a bit about backstories, and there is ALWAYS a line in there saying something along the lines of "Your character cannot have done any combat feats greater than defeating a nest of giant spiders, probably with help."
It stops them saying that they defeated a troll single handed when they were 10, or they were the strongest knight in the entire army before they were thrown out, and that also has ripple on effects to their other backstory elements. I find that I get less players who are already claiming to be major heroes, on anything more than a local level, and whilst it doesn't wipe out the terrible backstory element that is the prophecy, those prophecies tend to be smaller scale and vaguer, so I can do more to attempt to match them.
Since that ... does not match my experience at all, I'm now wondering about the common link in all your experiences.
I do agree that anytime I see a backstory that's ... presented as a fait-accompli and not as the start of a discussion, I've had a fairly long expectations setting session... ("No, I didn't read the Eberon fictional materials, and do not care about their canon"), but I've had a lot of different players who have detailed backstories that are still backstories and not Mary Sue FanFic.
And ... no, the backstory doesn't need to fit the campaign ... as long as the player is aware of both and won't be surprised when it doesn't fit. This is a campaign themed around Elven Politics and you're a Gnoll? Sure... let's talk about how you go to the start, and how'd you expect that to work. (let me figure out what parts of my campaign suddenly need editing... it turns out Gnolls have a different backstory here, and Lord Hanklefingers has a long history of hiring out to a local clan for mercenaries...)
Screw alignment! Lawful good and hungry? Eat the newborn child! Problem solved!!
On your bad #2 I respectfully disagree with you. And I'll cite your bad #1 example as my reasoning. Too often, I've had players who lie and double cross "the poor widow" who supposedly are LG. I think we can both agree that breaking your word and stealing from a helpless widow are neither lawful nor good actions. I don't so much "police" my players alignment (I am also glad it's no longer mechanics tied) but I let them know offline "Hey, when you first made your PC you put down Lawful Good, but the way you've been playing your PC lately (killing babies, kicking puppies, etc) would be considered Chaotic Evil by the average person in this world."
That being said, the only time alignment is ever a factor is at session zero where I say (with few caveats) no Evil PCs, and I wait to see if any future problem player chooses "CN"...
I have to disagree with your tip for preparation. I’m a big proponent of the Sly Flourish “Lazy Dungeon Master” approach. I’m not saying totally wing it but keep your preparation to a minimum. So many of the other problems on this list are a direct result of the DM spending a lot of time prepping and then becoming emotionally attached to their work. That’s why they’re railroading you, or telling you how to play your PC’s alignment, or nerfing your abilities, or becoming adversarial in encounters.
I'd argue that preparation isn't the problem there; It's poor preparation and skewed expectations. Good preparation is never bad because it includes willingness to deviate, and ease of pivoting. Bad preparation would result in the scenarios you described, surely.
Lazy DM prep is still prep
Nice view.
Alignment argument in other words: "I love 5e because it doesn't have classes. Classes are so oppressive. If I have a player who's a Cleric and they want to pick a lock, they should be able to pick the lock. It cuts down on my fun if you tell me 'You're a Cleric not a Rogue'. Wah! I should be able to do whatever, to BE my character. Classes are so oppressive!" UNSUB
But that IS the argument. There is a reason that trickery Clerics exist. People thought that they wanted a cleric that could pick locks, so they made a class that could. Your implied argument is that since, by default, Clerics can't pick locks, there should be no way for them to pick locks. And that's ridiculous.
To go back to the alignment point, yes, I could play an evil character that does good things or good character that does evil things, but there must be justification.
The only thing I disagree with is your finality with regards to alignment. If a character murders children and wants to write lawful good of their sheet, sure I can let them, but that's not a good aligned character. So when they may travel to Celestia and they start feeling bad because they are evil and they start complaining that their sheet says lawful good, it's a problem.
This is an extreme example but it's to contrast the finality of your statement. As a DM, I decide on many things, including what's considered good or evil, lawful or chaotic in the world I'm running. I mustn't dictate alignment as a god, but the players can't just write whatever they want and expect that to hold true either. Like everything else in dnd, discussing it and being honest and consistent is the key, in my opinion
I've run some games where alignment is a marker of something in the backstory, and not actually related to how someone acts, except possibly in a global statistical way. You have some celestial blood in you, so you're lawful good. You detect as good, you are impacted by games rules as if you're good... but it doesn't bind your actions in any way. And if you go to some higher plane of goodness, you'll can still be chucked out for being a jerk by the entities in it.
In such games, I tend to suggest player characters are generally unaligned unless they wish the alignment to be one of their hooks.
Eberron, specifically, can lend itself to this approach.
Taking alignment out of D&D was one of the single, worst decisions made by WotC. 'Nuf said, topic dropped.
That's certainly a take I have never heard before
But alignment IS in the game.
Hot Take.
Hot take. Especially since alignment is in D&D to this day lol