💖 Support us on Patreon and get Lair Magazine and other rewards! www.patreon.com/thedmlair ⚔ Get Lairs & Legends! Over 700 pages of D&D 5e GM resources: adventures spanning levels 1 to 15, 100+ new monsters, encounters, puzzles, traps, villains, NPCs, maps, and more! - the-dm-lair.myshopify.com/collections/lairs-legends
Honestly a lot of this is more "make sure the DM and players are on the same page". You can do almost all of these things in your home game IF the DM and players communicate and everyone agrees on the best approach. Not doing that will definitely lead to issues but so will bringing in a homebrew class or a new house rule or changing up how initiative functions or anything else. Successful games are built on a foundation of player/DM communication.
I respectfully disagree. Some of the points DM Lair makes here are about the consequences of metagaming, which is directly caused by _excessive_ communication between the DM and player(s), not a lack of it. Also, I've recently had a hard time with a DM recently--he's a fan of Critical Role, and has DM'd our group for 2 years now--who absolutely insists that he thinks long descriptions and massive combats are fun, even though 3/5 players have told him they strongly disagree and aren't having fun. We communicated how we felt as honestly as possible, but he won't listen. So I think this video makes some really good points, and he's absolutely right that most of these things just aren't going to be fun for the games at home.
@@DoctorX149 Assuming you're not counting the DM as one of the 3/5's of the players then you have 50% of the players at the table who disagree. So which 50% gets their way, assuming there's no way to compromise? The DM is 100% there to have fun as well, not simply provide entertainment to the others.
@@DoctorX149 that is an example of poor communication. Communicating with players includes listening to what they say. The list is designed to help new GMs who have more experience watching games than running them. An experienced GM may be able to pull these off but new GMs should be wary of trying them. That killing a plauer with power word kill example given in the video could work if the player knows it will happen and is prepared. That could create a dramatic moment for the other players. But it is something that could easily backfire... in so many ways I can't describe them all here. Therefore, the advice is to avoid it. In creative ventures like writing and story telling, rules are meant to be bent and broken by those with experience and generally exist to keep newbies from running into too much trouble.
About half of the examples were things I actually enjoy and hope the DM does. Like, please, let me be a character that gets introduced midway through session 1 and let me see the other players go like "Oh shit!". I love seeing the reaction, it's a big payoff for me. I also don't mind not being there for a good part of the session. My fun isn't just from doing stuff, it's from watching my friends do stuff too. I also look forward to have my character find out later about what happened then. *I'm afraid a lot of those were specific to their tables, who plays in them and their good and bad experiences. They will fit those who are like them, but not everyone. The best way to take the video is take the advice that works for you and COMPLETELY ignore those that don't fit you and your friends. You can do a lot of harm to your table if you just believe everything people tell you blindly, even if they are pro and specialized content creators.*
I think the thing here is that this stuff can be good advice for action-oriented tables, but a very large chunk of new groups are, as my wife just put it, more interested in telling collaborative stories with their OCs, than they are in an action packed game. For those tables, the emotional moments between participants, the "cool" moments in a dialogue, etc, and (again credit to my wife) even the action scenes they tell their friends about arre framed in terms of how they impacted the characters and the story and what the narrative leadup to and fallout from that event was.
The online group I'm in is very much like that. We all love to roleplay and telling a story. I do personally wish there was maybe a tad more combat sometimes, but the RP has been quite entertaining. The group I DM for though is a bit of a mixed bag that isn't quite as comfortable with RP. I've pushed them to do a good amount of it, but I do always try to incorporate at least one combat encounter per session, even if its an easy one that will go by super quick (sometimes its good to let your players mop the floor with some monsters to make them feel badass). I do also have occasional little cinematic monologues that I write, but they're not super frequent and in general my players have received them pretty well.
This isn't even about groups that are new to the hobby. My group, for instance, has been playing together for the better part of 25 years (we started young), and we've always been much more narrative focused. Our characters are usually treated more like fanfic OCs than video game avatars (though they are that, too). We'll have a party of five or more, with a DM, and every last one of us has a fully developed "main character syndrome", and we love it. We're all telling separate stories within a larger story, and rarely (if ever) has anyone had any complaints. Make no mistake, we break stuff and hurt things, but only in service to the narrative, and we even have character conflict because of it. Trust me, some of the old guys in the hobby like to play this way, and have been for a long time. Back in our day (3e and 3.5e), it just wasn't the way most people did it
@@ryudoblub2950 The monologue point is the only point in this video that I agree with unqualified. That, however, was only one point made in the whole video. Most of the dissent in the comments section disagrees with the entire premise of the video, not just the one point. I feel sure that nearly everyone would agree that DM monologuing is not ideal, though certainly people exist who would disagree wholeheartedly with that point, too
The last three sessions of my game have had zero combat, but my players also went over time by an hour each of those sessions so they could do even more "Talky-talky". I guess they have been enjoying the story.
I do think it really depends on your players. Using myself as an example I'll play and try to contribute to social heavy sessions but they are almost always my least favourite of the 3 types with odd exceptions for quirky kobolds and tricky fey. They happen to be my GMs favourite type of encounter though. So it's a little give and take. I'm huge on the exploration pillar of gameplay. 3 sessions back to back of pure social would grate on me HARD. If that was a new game with a DM i didn't yet trust I would be seriously considering leaving the game thinking it wasn't the right fit for me.
I think it also depends on how you frame the talking and how comfortable your players are talking to each other. Like I am watching a series that isn't dnd, they made up their own game and it is VERY talk heavy. Combat is replaced with drawing and there is very little exploration. The story progresses through talking and finding more information or getting things from the new NPC they run into every episode. The GM also doesn't really narrate much, the story is mostly conveyed through dialog. But it works because the players are VERY comfortable with banter and the story is well written for that kind of interaction.
In my current campaign, I had a new player join at a point where the party was in the middle of nowhere exploring the lair of a dragon they had just killed. There was no logical way of introducing a new PC... So I had him frozen to the wall of the lair... The treasure was literally the friend they made along the way.
The one about talky talky is kind of subjective. A recent session I played in for a modern game a friend of mine is running had no combat and occurred across a total of three rooms, and it seemed like everyone enjoyed it.
In fairness though, it did involve dealing with the aftermath of the previous session at the beginning, and we were in a high-intensity non-combat situation by the end.
I think a better way of putting it is not to overexplain a single thing and lock a player put of doing things. I imagine during this pure roleplay/exploration, your wife had various choices and methods of input to influence the story. Ones that don't necessarily have to involve combat. The problem only arises when the DM is talking at their players for 10 minutes about just how damp a room is, and how many mold spots there are, unprompted. If a playet wants more information, they can ask. If a player needs less, that puts them in the awkward position of waiting for you to be done or cutting you off.
@@piranhaplantX While your reply is partially relevant to what I was saying, the reference to a wife leads me to believe you meant to reply to the comment of a different user by the name of Matthew Forish, posted around the same time as mine. My D&D group is comprised purely of friends and librarians.
@Diego Palacios paiva absolutely! I feel like I've been mostly playing in groups where there is a focus on the roleplaying part and I (and my fellow players from what I can tell) are massively enjoying it. It becomes even stronger in other gaming systems. Vampire comes to mind, which to me is almost purely "talky talky" by design I would argue.
Agreed; this really depends on your game, particularly if you're reaching outside of DnD. For example, GURPS is designed in such a way that it's very easy to have a campaign with no combat, or very very little combat; everything is social interactions and skill checks.
Respectfully, I’ve done pretty much all of these things, and it’s worked really well! The key here is communication, and knowing what you and your players want. Some of them are huge fans of those shows, and want a similar experience. The others don’t watch the shows, but have been on board for all of the shenaniganry that you’re describing. One size for sure does not fit all, but most of these things can work well if done right, and communication is at the forefront!
Dont think the video is saying you cant do these things, but that in shows they work better. Either because theyre planned with the players knowing about it or because the people at the table wont throw a hissy-fit/be professional about it. The table I dm for would dispise if I outright killed off one or more of them for story beat sake. But like you say, communication is key. If you talk to them and theyre oke with it then its fine. If you talk to them though and they hate it, dont force it on them or you might find the players leaving.
I think it's extremely close-minded to condemn the concept of conspiring with a player. If a player is onboard for a particular narrative beat and it would help make the experience more interesting for everyone at the table there isn't really a problem. Matt Colville has a great video on this topic.
It depends on whether your group's focus is more on storytelling or more on tactical gaming. Groups with a storytelling focus will be more likely to be on board with a planned narrative beat, while groups more focused on tactical gaming could perceive it as cheating, especially if the event gives the "conspiring" player an advantage or creates negative consequences for the rest of the party. I think especially the example of planning a player death (in case the player is bored with that character and wants to retire him by a worthy heroe's death) can totally be something that the player and the DM plan beforehand. When in doubt, I'd advise to run such "scripted" events by the whole group before, not surprise them with it, so that all players are on the same page.
@@lindenhowlett6723 The advice in the video did not aim at avoiding personal story archs (which of course also often include the DM and the player sharing some knowledge about the player's goals that are still a secret to the rest of the party), but at planned events (like the example of a preplanned character death). The potentially problematic point about such planned events is less that the player and the DM have a common secret, but more the fact that this player together with the DM got to decide and knows before what will happen, instead of just deciding what his character will do.
@@lindenhowlett6723 Me too. And those personal arcs intertwine with the main campaign arc. Our Paladin wanted to break his oath. I didn't really fancy an evil character in the group and so created a whole multiverse god-adjacent NPC who offered him a higher calling and made him neutral instead. Turns out Wizard spells instead of Warlock are a selling point lol. That resulted in a whole new higher level baddie being created for down the line.
Concerning the Player to DM metagaming... I very much want my players at my table because they're having fun, not just because I want someone to enjoy the story I came up with. I encourage them to come to me with ideas for their characters or their backstories. But- I feel like it's my duty as DM to take those ideas, make sure they aren't game or world-breaking, and then find a way to weave them into the narrative. I have long discussions with my players on the credibility of their ideas, and how they can be accomplished with 5e dynamics. Case in point: my Ranger player has super bad ADD in real life and asked me to just sort of create a base character for him. Naturally I crafted him after Aragorn, but having no conception of either Lord of the Rings or DnD, after learning game mechanics, his intention for the character basically turned into a lightning and ice-wielding sharingan user from Naruto. I know nothing about Naruto... So I spent the last month working with him behind the scenes while we had other sessions still being played, which resulted in creating a Homebrew Ranger subclass that will allow him to -essentially- become an agreed-upon incarnation of a lightning and ice-wielding sharingan user from Naruto. The other players don't yet know what powers he has in store. Furthermore, as DM I'm the only one who knows how/when the encounter will occur that unlocks the path to be able to obtain those abilities as an imposed checks/balances system. That way, the super-high level stuff he wants, can still be had, but I reasoned that he needs to do his "ninja-studies" to achieve them. He also happened to have tamed twin foxes that he has as pets in combat... so further motivation to keep him from being too over-powered. I then took it a step further and otherwise invented or asked the other players if they had any specific ideas for the progression of their players currently as opposed to how we started, and wove those into the plot as well. I've also found it a convenient way to reveal bits of character backstory without it having to be narration. By having them come up with their powerups, or familiar type acquisitions before they happen, it allows them to be more invested in how the exploration of the world unfolds, but by retaining the how/why of the encounters' occurances, I can retain the ability to provide suspense and a more organic narrative flow.
I'd like to point out that sometimes a game at home may end in such a way that the entire next session will be combat, or social, etc. It happens that way sometimes.
Yeah same here. Last session was supposed to be mostly about combat and my party ended up enjoying a festival I thought they wouldnt care about and only did RP for the entire session lol. The combat sessions are still waiting for them but sometimes sessions dont go the way I expect them to :D
These are definitely things to watch out for and be aware of. But as someone who's been dming since 2001 I could have made the same video and called it "eight things I do that my players say make my games the best they've been in." Streaming didn't create a new style. It happens to be the case that there's only a couple of gaming styles that make for good television.
This. I have a pretty big issue with this video because you can have scripted parts of a story and also have non-scripted parts. I feel like this video makes it seem that you have to either fully script something or have no script at all. You can plan things with your players and characters to make them feel awesome or make unique and memorable moments, while also leaving *the majority* of the story up to you, the players choices, and the dice rolls. The thing is that scripted scenes require a level of class and finesse that (no offense to new DMs) a lot of new DMs just can't pull off their first few times.
Yeah I agree. I think he puts too much stock into the idea that the DM on famous shows pander to the audience because that’s what makes good tv when I think it’s more likely that that’s the style of game that their players actually enjoy which happens to also make for good tv. I know that people from Critical Role have talked about how not much has changed in their style of game after they started streaming.
@@sybinn3920 Considering he won't allow PCs to have problems with each other, I suspect he does have some interest in story as long as it's his and his alone.
I just wanna share a story for number 6. Back in the early games of our campaign, i had 2 players who confronted me saying they would like to switch characters, but they also informed the rest of the rest of the players, they didn't really know how they'd have their characters taken out of the story though, so as we were nearing the end of this siege on the city where they were I kinda explained a situation where I thought their characters could say goodbye, basicly it was them sacrificing themeselves so the others can escape, and these 2 players just picked up on it perfectly, they realised without me telling them directly that "this is our moment", and because the other players already knew that these 2 would be switching characters they didn't go to extreme lengths to stop them (of course they had a little rp moment of "cmon stay with us" etc.) But it also suprised them. In the end we had a very epic and emotional farewell to those 2 characters, everybody loved that moment and now after 2 years with still talk about it here and there
It's all about communication, which I think he just has a problem with... I mean he forbids his Players to fight each other. Have you ever seen a group of friends who never fight about anything? Also, that sounds awesome!
I think it depends on the table. As a DM, I love to fully describe what my players see, but I won't go overboard with character monologues, as that isn't my style. I've found players that also are not super-focused on social encounters, and don't spend hours (literal in game time) role playing dialogues. Your DM style needs to meet your players expectations and desires, otherwise you'll get frustrated and annoyed when things don't go as planned.
I think you should be descriptive enough to where they would get what you would typically take in on a brief look. But leave finer details as something the player asks for, if they're actually interested. Then if they sit in on a lengthy description, it's because they opted in to it, or it is actually relevant.
It depends on both the players and the DM tbh. Some players care more about details then others do. Some want to RP and others just want combat. Ensuring that all players get what they want out of the game should be the goal. If everyone wants the same out of the game its obviously the easiest to achieve but its not impossible to give everyone what theyre after. Unless expectations are completly opposite, obviously.
Don't describe everything though. I found players won't remember any real details that way or they will obsess over the wrong things. I try to get across the shape, ambient and function of a space, while showcasing few detailes. That parks interest and gives room for agency. They do the exploring, not the soaking up exposition (like the reader has to in a book, as there is no dialogue.)
In a narrative focused game, the participants are also the audience. Much like improv theatre, which these tables are very good at. They aren't focused more on audience than players, they just know that each person at the table will be just as engaged as as an audience would be when two characters are having a dramatic moment away form the rest of the group.
Yea it’s best to conspire about themes players want to touch on through the campaign and what they are okay with happening but not to get too specific that characters start to meta game and break it cause players are great at breaking games
Nah. My players LOVE these things. They LOVE social interactions. They LOVE description. We delight in an 8 hour sesh with no combat. One of my players was my DM that did all these things in a TEN YEAR LONG campaign that is still the epitome of what we chat about and compare things to, and that was way before Critical Role ever hit the ground. The ongoing story was THE reason we played. Some of us cried watching other characters play a side scene, it was that intense. Two characters got into a screaming match, and it was AMAZING. We conspire all the time. We trust each other to just roll with it. We never "planned" for long social interactions or long combat. We "planned" story. As a DM, I'm trying to balance the pacing so that my players are *interested* throughout the game. As other commenters have said, it's all about communication with the players - what do they like, what do they dislike, and how much trust will they extend to the DM for things they may not be sure about, and trusting their fellow players.
Hard disagree. It sounds like you found a very niche group that doesn't represent the majority because I have been in several groups that get annoyed if there is nothing to do but talk.
@@carterdahl9654 DM Lair: "Talking too much might not work out generally" Him: "Nah, my players like this" Me: "Your players don't represent the majority so why are you implying they are?" There is an implication. Otherwise he would have specified that some people don't like so much talking and that all groups are different.
My players and I can be a little too sparing on the talkie talkie. So I can try to encourage and facilitate it when I can, because I have noticed over the years that a decent amount of the right kind of talking can make the combat and exploration way more fun because it sets the stakes
That one about "the perfect moment" happened to me once, had to sit around for 5 straight sessions for my character to be introduced, then second session that I actually played one of the other players thought it might be fun to mind control my character so I couldnt play for another session, DM did nothing. Lets just say I did not stick around
Yeah, that sounds like a group that didn't care about your engagement as a player. Personally, I don't mind watching and just enjoying the story of the games I'm in. There's been a few recent sessions where I have done nothing but listen, and I was on board with that. (our party is split for downtime, and the DM is focusing on the other player's arcs). That being said, there's a big difference between that experience, and your experience. I'm glad you left that table. I don't think it was a good fit for you.
I have had issues with the other side of this, where I thought I had a decent but quick point where I could introduce a new character, where it made sense that the new character would interact with the others, but because what was going on was high tension and under stealth all the other PCs got very suspecious, and we had a kind of standoff where they were close to blowing up each other. If I had waited, then as things were escalating it would have just become a poorer and poorer place to inject a new character, and I think the new player would have needed like 3-5 sessions of passing on before things would have settled down enough that there would have been a better time to introduce that character.
Not all games are the same, but I want attentive, actively engaged, mature, patient, role players where we all have the same creative agenda. My creative agenda includes many of the things you mentioned as not do to.
Wish I could throw my hat in- I enjoy all three pillars of the game. In my last online game, I would "Talky Talk" with one of my co-players for FOUR hours after the session had ended. I get super tactical in combat, and I want to explore the DMs entire homebrew setting.
Each group is different tbh. Thats what session 0's are for. If you want RP heavy action and the players want combat it wont fly. But if all noses are pointing in the same direction then it should all work out.
7:53 It's funny. I find the combat low intensity and the social back and forth high intensity. I feel more on the spot in social time. Combat turns are soooooo much easier.
Same I think that might because I’m pretty socially awkward and all but combat is easy Ik what my character want to do in combat way more than talking with any npc
But there's nothing fun at all about the combat without context from social stuff? You're all so weird. I don't even like people, but yall are just... shallow.
@@pleasegoawaydude Socially shallow, maybe. But the way the 5E combat engine is built is anything but shallow. There are a lot of variables, tactics and plans that can be executed in combat. Some of which can have a "social" aspect to it, manipulation of enemies with role play choices as well. But, to each thier own. I find combat easier to get my brain around. :)
@@pleasegoawaydude Just because they said it was easier doesn't mean that they don't value the social aspect or context. I find combat easier because it's less stressful. I have fewer options, and plenty of time to think about my moves between each turn. However, the context is what makes me care about the outcome, and I need the narrative to reinforce why my character is fighting. PC/NPC dialogue is my absolute jam, but I still agree with E C about it being more "high intensity" for me ^^
I really love shows like CR but I totally hear what you are saying. When I first started DMing I strived to reach Matt Mercer level, but I later learned that that was not realistic and caused me too much anxiety before a game. Your videos have been a huge help in getting me to focus on what is fun for the players vs epic highly produced story telling.
I used to fantasize about playing in one of Matt's games. I don't anymore. I'd be an awful fit. I enjoy the 'combat tier' more than the social tier (about 70/30). I get bored if the 'talky-talky' bits go on for too long and will and have started fights 'just cause' when multiple sessions start going by without combat. In addition there's a fundamental difference between his games and mine. His games ask "How do the heroes save the day?" The games I play in ask, "Do the heroes save the day?" There's little doubt that his players will win, the game is heavily tilted in their favor and designed for them to win. A TPK would be next to impossible in Matt's game. Most of my characters end up dead in my games. Just a matter of odds and the enemies play to win/kill just as much as the players do.
Its watching an artist practice their art inspiring us to also create. But we're seeing this art done with years of honing a set of skills. Instead trying the same massive project we see, we're better off starting with small projects. Modest steps that allow for experimentation, failure, and learning... and eventually success. Which gives us the skills needed for larger steps. In our own style.
@@MJ-jd7rs I'd say I'm more towards the middle on combat and roleplay. But I don't think that affects my feelings on CR. Because the lack of meaningful combat or the ability to actually fail, and hard, would probably make his games extremely dull to me outside of the banter with the party. I mean, I don't mean this as a bash to CR. But any experienced DM who watches enough of it will realize how generous and forgiving Matt is towards the party. To the point where, as you point out, I don't think Matt would allow them to really fail. For me, the moment I realized that, I would probably become very bored and uninterested in anything outside of party banter. This is the same reason I stopped fudging dice and bailing my players out as a DM. The moment you realize what your DM is doing, you realize there are no real stakes. Even during the pure roleplay choices. Matt would pull punches. Like the entirety of C1 where they regularly set a fire then ignored it. Like with the uprising in the Briarwood arc. Where they kicked off the rebellion and quickly after wanted to take a 30+ minute short rest while villagers were left to fight undead. Even up to the Vecna arc, half the party was pushing for a long rest while the Titan zombie was casually strolling towards vasselheim. You can sort of tell Matt threw them a bone with the fey wild time cheese to get the narrative back on track.
@@piranhaplantX as a DM you DO fudge the dice a bit; TPK is something you generally prefer to avoid unless the players themselves are FULLY responsible for ending up in a doomed scenario (like deciding to fight a whole army of orcs by themselves). Sometimes the dice are just against you and the luck being the deciding factor between failure or success - when players actually went to their strengths and it's pure, bad luck that they had a string of "natural ones" that push them to failure - is also discouraging. The players are not your enemies and you shouldn't take the approach of killing their characters at all costs. That said I do agree that you can't make things too easy on them, especially when their characters have no social skills and as a result they fail Charisma checks, even important ones. It was their choice to build their party is such a way, so they should play to their strengths. If a level 2 character antagonizes a sorcerer with no patiences who is several times more powerful then yeah: you can expect said sorcerer to "nuke" a fireball on your face. Actions MUST have consequence and I agree to that whole-heartedly; failure is actually a pretty good tool to have in a campaign IF your players are engaged in their characters and plot. But failure can have many forms and as a DM it's important to understand just how far you should go with it... otherwise you may end up discouraging yours players from the game entirely.
We once successfully pulled off the "character planned to die" thing in a CoC oneshot. But that is probably because CoC has a much higher random character death rate than most rpgs...
In regards to introducing characters, one thing that I have had work out in my home game is having the short solo vignettes for each character in the first session. You probably don't want to have them go on as long as Dimension 20 does, but it's a fun way to give the rest of the table a peek into the character's backstory (especially if they didn't create their characters together). Just make sure they know it's happening ahead of time, get their input on it, and make sure it ends with them all coming together. I do this by having the last question in my character creation questionnaire asking how their character got to the actual start of the campaign (examples include "why are you running through the woods," "why are you sailing to [location]," "why are you in jail," or "why are you at the royal ball?"). I use their answer to construct a short scene that leads up to them doing that thing.
Great advice! Just want to note - only because I didn't hear it mentioned - the best piece of advice for any DM is to do what works for them and for their players. Sometimes, that does involve heavier role-play, extensive descriptions, and long sessions dominated by one element of the game. It always depends on DM style and player expectations, which is why Session 0 is so important. Generally, though, you make excellent points, as most new DMs tend to idolize show DMs and look to their styles as the de facto for how all D&D should be run, instead of catering the experience to their own strengths and table.
I had a great experience with a simulated PVP performance at the Witchlight carnival by two performers at the big top. It kept the stress out of it because it was a semi-coordinated match for the imaginary audience to enjoy. I could see a full brawl going poorly, but I had a ranger and a monk fighting with metal poles and magnetic arrows so it was a fun surprising session under a controlled circumstance.
This is really affirming! As someone who started as a player, jumped into watching Dimension 20 and Critical Role, and only THEN decided to take a shot at DMing (in that order), I held the bar incredibly high for myself after watching Brennan and Matt weave these beautiful narrative storylines, monologues, descriptions, you name it. I legitimately thought that was how world-building was meant to work. But as I picked up more experience, I realized I didn't have to describe every new place, NPC, whatever in excruciating detail. A big part of participating in this hobby is getting over our own perfectionism as artists, creators, storytellers, or just simply as people playing a game, and I think the greatest gift D&D gives people - if they allow it to be given! - is the ability to take a breath and really internalize that it's not all up to us as the DM (or even as a PC)- we're all co-creating together, and when it's balanced, the burden is no longer a burden. One of the most crucial things I've learned since starting to watch your videos is to champion player agency above all else. I really do think this is the best core maxim to use when making decisions as a DM / always ensuring your game is the best it can be. Thank you for that :)
Last Saturday we had a session where it was actually the DM who got frustrated that we spent 3 solid hours doing talky-talky! It's still very early in the campaign, and we had a lot of potential pc v pc conflict to air out and work through.
That is so disappointing, honestly, because I'm also a DM and I love it when the players pick up heavy roleplay like that! I've been player a few times and know how good it can feel to have time for excessive roleplaying! I do have to be fair, I was never in that situation as a DM but I assume the DM also got to do something, like answering questions, playing NPCs and stuff, and that would totally satisfy me in that moment, especially if I am able to pick up on conflicts or motivations that I can consider later in my game
@@LB-yg2br No shit. I'm really getting tired of the talky talky players. Put on a goddamn play or just play with dolls if that's how your getting off. Just let the rest of us have our adventure and loot in peace.
@@graysonbaker1744 Maybe just talk to your players? I assume you guys just have different ideas of what roleplay makes fun, but that doesn't mean their idea of how to play is wrong. Just that they might not be the right players for your table
@@graysonbaker1744 I have no idea why people get mad about talky talky players (or for that matter all-combat hardcore tacticians, but the pendulum seems to have swung back to hating "over-role-players" in what I actually see complaints about). If that's not your gaming style, just *don't play with them*. In addition to the (very good advice) a number of commenters have given here that DMs should talk to their players to find out what they want, players should talk to their DMs and each other. If a game has a different balance of the three pillars than what you personally like, well, decide whether there are other aspects of the game that make up for it, and if there aren't, find another group. Basically: However you like to play, you can't tell other people that they're having fun wrong. If a group wants to use 5e to play a primarily-talky game, that's their business, not yours.
The amount of balances you have to find is genuinely a challenge. The balance between Long-winded, overly dramatic combat and group maths, the balance between roleplay and gameplay, the balance between players' gaming preferences. At the end of the day, there's always going to be parts of your game that some of your players will enjoy less than others. It's a lot of lime-juggling. The best way I've found to make this easier for yourself is to tell your players what kind of game you're running. Because some will hate combat and love roleplay. Some will love keeping track of resources whilst travelling and others may just want to get from A to B in 8 seconds and just want progression. Make sure your players know what they're signing up for!
I go the opposite direction. The players run the game, I just keep track of economy and ecology. I tell them what they sense, but I do not tell them where to go or what to do. They do all the heavy lifting. I just sit back and let them screw around. Sometime they shop for hours. Sometimes they hunt bandits. Sometimes they overthrow kingdoms. Sometimes they just wander around looking a butterflies.
Also, that balance changes from table to table. Luke would probably hate a session of the campaign I'm running, but my players love it (in fairness, they are patient to a lot of genuine issues because I pointed out in session 0 what the concept is, and they were up to it).
I think DMs should discuss with their table to decide what works best for all of them. Much of what you described sounds like it's coming from combat oriented groups. There's nothing wrong with that style of play, but I personally enjoy increased focus on description and roleplay than each session being solely a math problem.
The talking really depends. Our table is very RP heavy, and most players prefer story and interactions to combat - we've even had an entire minicampaign of seven sessions with only three instances of combat and it was amazing! For those of you asking "how was it not boring" - it was a whodunnit mystery about an alchemist that worked with a clan of ninjas to overthrow the shogun, our party was hired by said shogun to help solve the problem after clearing out a cursed temple. Also present was a cult of corrupt Jesuit monks that worshipped Beelzebub, the demon himself possessing one of said monks, a group of friendly revolutionaries, and a dried up mummy monk at another temple that gave dream life lessons. Did not miss combat.
@@noeticparadigm1576 I hate dungeon crawls, and in the games I run, it shows. The few times I'm running a dungeon crawl, I struggle to keep it fun, because I just don't know what's fun about dungeon crawling.
About "conspiring with the players" I often do this, either as DM or a player, where I discuss with the specific player (or DM) possible cool moments for their (or my) character. I''m personally a big fan of this. Obviously, we don't discuss EVERY moment like this, but that gives the player something to be looking forward to, and creates a cool moment other players get to witness. Just make sure to keep that limited. It's especially good near the start of a campaign to "show off" the ideal scenario the character was made to shine in.
Yeah I strongly disagree with that advice. D&D is a collaborative story, it's not 'the DM's story and that's it'. Often, players want the story to focus on them, so I will take whatever opportunity I can to involve them as such. I'll happily re-write part of what I'd planned if a players personal story crosses paths with it and change it up to include that players involvement. They won't know the NPC's agenda, so if both are evil it doesn't mean a happy alliance etc, but it can result in interesting RP moments where good characters have to explain their actions if less moral if caught out, evil characters can push their agendas in secret without players noticing etc. Some of it doesn't even come out of the shadows, but it will influence the rest.
Number 3: I ran a couple sessions after our group finished Lost Mines of Phandelver while giving our regular DM time to prep for Storm King's Thunder. With one PC continuing, I had him be the reason for the trip down the High Road. It took like a minute to introduce our first new PC, a couple of minutes of interaction and after five minutes (like half-day in-game) from the start of the session we meet our second new PC. Having all three at the same place at the same time would have been lame but it's not like I'm going to have the guys meet at sessions apart, jeez. It was my first time DMing and boy was I lost at times but that's just common sense.
Brennan, and Matt among others would agree with you. Do *not* try to be like their games. Though I have been playing around the same time as most of the PRO DM's; I DM very differently than him or Brennan but my players have fun. I think a lot of newer DM's struggle with this the same way new writers try to emulate their favorite authors. Things I do or try to do: 1. I do use voices for NPC's I always have it livens up the game but I am not a voice actor and as the night wanes on this wavers a bit if I get tired LOL 2. I let my players describe their new spells the first time they cast them 3. I do not use maps unless there is a tactical reason to use a map - You have to learn to be okay with fuzziness. "How far away am I? About 30 feet, you could probably get to that Orc if you needed to." 4. I try not to use dice rolls whenever possible 5. I do not allow party conflict, thats a hard rule. If it starts I ask the players involved the step away from the table and sort it out before they come back without dice and characters involved. It is NEVER "my character" this in real life is always about the players themselves taking issue with something and I am not a life coach go work it out. 6. I do not use alignment and tell my players to forget everything about the system as it doesn't exist. There are no "evil" parties. Alignment is a cool tool but its usually just an excuse to be a d*** and nothing should be that black and white. Not every Red dragon is a psychopath. 7. I have my characters write a backstory before play begins and I work with them to figure out what kind of story they are trying to tell with that character, what do they want to see happen. - Sometimes if its a combat focused player their story is simple they want to kill stuff and make gold. Easy - A recent player of mine really wanted to "be a dragon" so I worked with them and their backstory is they are in fact an old silver dragon who was cursed by an enemy (a BBEG) and every time they die they forget everything after the curse 50 First Dates style. But they reappear unharmed in their lair... its a nasty curse. So they keep journals in their old lair and during downtimes they take the journals back and store them. Occasionally when they kill a big enemy one of their lost journals is found. Their story arc is that one day they will indeed end that curse and they know as a player that means at the end of the campaign their character will become a dragon again ... and have no reason to adventure any longer and will return to doing dragon things. So they are telling the story of a slice of that characters life. - I have had a player write a story for a Goliath fighter who woke up from a drunken brawl but has no memory of how they arrived in the city. All they had was a note to meet with the NPC to kick things off. So their story was a Hangover style story amidst the rest of the game. They would occasionally remember things 8. This is likely the most important. Listen to your players. - I had one tell me I took away any chance of negotiating with enemies when I would say roll for initiative. In my mind I was just moving to tactical tracking to keep track of time, and where everyone is if combat happens. In their mind rolling for initiative meant combat was imminent. I adjusted how I transition. Now I say, "Lets move to turn based gameplay." That way everyone gets a chance in order. I just go around the table and dont call for initiative until combat begins. Some things I _do_ think DM's could adopt that are helpful... 1. Teach your players to let you as the DM talk - just respect them and keep it brief - For example I try to set aside a 30 minute detritus session before a game starts I call: "Office Hours" it allows people to show up early, eat if they like, BS with other players and ask me questions - I hold one of those same sessions for 30 minutes after the game typically 2. Always try to find a way to say, "Yes" to your players. Not exactly give them what they want but if they express a desire to accomplish something try to find a way to make it work 3. Keep you ruling consistent 4. Have a conversation with your players about what they are looking for in the game - I do this before every campaign or a new player joins 5. Use downtime. No seriously, use downtime. Between adventures in campaigns I set each adventure when possible a few months apart. I then ask each player what their character is doing during that time. This allows for spell research, crafting items, personal quests etc. Its entirely narrative and involves combat very rarely as it is a low risk thing - I use these to introduce a new player to the game when possible - These are great chances to "tell a good story" if that is your thing as the DM
@@carettcake8752 I sometimes do that. You can easily enough copy the text out (it's a plain text, after all) and save it in you preferred text editor. For me, that would be Notepad++ on PC, but you can use any notepad app on any system ever. The "copy" command works on PC as well as on mobile and just about everywhere. And if you're on mobile and lack any note-taking app there, you can always send a message on Messenger to yourself, thus saving the comment into Meta's servers and finding it at your leisure.
I just started watching DnD videos (both Dm training ones like yours and DnD shows) and I love the fact that you constantly refer to the fun factor. That is the ultimate goal, whether it's a Monty Haul campaign, a super realistic campaign or anything in between, the goal as a gm is to make sure everyone (including yourself) is having fun. The fact that you constantly mention that within multiple videos of yours that I have seen let's me know you get it. I've been playing for over 35 years and have run multiple campaigns in which the party constantly grows in size because of word of mouth and enjoyment and I can't stress how important it is to focus on both you and the party having fun. I cannot imagine a game session in which a person had to wait three sessions to play. I've had people added in middle of a campaign, but it's usually no more than 20 minutes into the session (although we did have one time the party nearly killed the new character because they didn't realize it was a new character type of thing) I love your passion for these things and enjoy the rants you do....
Some good thoughts, and mostly correct. It can depend on the game and the players though. My wife and I play a one-on-one campaign (I the DM, her the player, also known as a "duet") and in that setting, the "talky-talky" can really take center stage. We often play whole, multi-hour sessions with little to no combat or exploration, because we are both so committed to the narrative we are building. Of course, we have also played combats that have lasted a whole day when the situation warrants it. Also, bacon could quite possibly be the world's most perfect food. Please ship me several packs of the tasty stuff! :'D
I play 1 on 1 D&D with my GF and she is the total opposite. 15% RP, 35% exploration, 50% rolling initiative. However she loves the stories... She lets her spells do the talking, or convinces the NPCs to talk it out. After I was literally talking to myself every session, I started to just roll some dice and tell her the result of conversation if she wants to add anything.
People can play Role-Playing game as they like BUT... when what you like the most is to roll init, to hit and call out damage, and that narratives bore you... maybe you should play some board game instead. Narrative are important to picture scenes in an accurate way and establish the world. Imagine you watch a movie and they don't bother making a set because who cares about the background... it's an action movie. THAT'S exactly the BS mentality of NOOB Role-Players. As a player, If I attack it's never roll dice: yell 18? GM answer you hit! I answer 9 damages. THAT'S ROLL Playing game NOT ROLE Playing game... My attack would be like : After parrying the previous attack from the orc with my shield, deflecting his blade to my left, I (roll dice... call number... gm confirm the hit) ... I bring back my shield and punch him to destabilize my opponent, I trust (roll damage notice it's okie but nothing awesome) the tip of my long sword into the opening in his defence. NOW you are telling a story, ACTING your character, and ROLE-PLAYING. When you read a book... they describe the scenery etc... WHY? To build the world! Now if many people are now morons who can't focus and immerse themselves into a story and lack imagination so much that they are bored when asked to use it... like I said... yeah they can play like they want. BUT I think this video is TOTALLY wrong when saying that's NOT what my player WANTS... DM Lair is SO wrong... he has NO IDEA what my players want... I'm 44 and I am Role-Playing since I was 8 years old... this tips is TOTAL bullcrap. It's like saying your book could have been resumed by They formed a team to beat a bad guy and won... hence your 600 pages book is not what readers want. @ _ @
@@fredericleclerc9037 Interestingly, my wife, who loves the narrative aspects of both the social and exploration parts of the game, isn't so much into describing her combat most of the time, unless there are very important narrative aspects already involved, and even then she doesn't get into the nitty-gritty of how she swings her blades, blocks or parries, etc. She enjoys combat, but more from the tactical aspect. She isn't much for gory descriptions, nor even flashy explanations of how the fighting occurs. That part just isn't her cup of tea. To say she is just a roll player, however, would be a gross mischaracterisation. She cares deeply about the results of the encounter, just not about describing every flourish, strike, and parry. When her character (a Bard) sets up to perform in a tavern to earn a night's stay and a bit of coin, she gets very detailed, describing the tone, tempo, etc. that she is going for, sometimes singling out audience members or dealing with specific traumas as she performs. It can get visceral. We even created a series of rehearsal and performance rules to further enhance and engage with that aspect of the story, because it means so much to her. Everyone has their preferences. Deeply narrative combat isn't for everyone.
@@fredericleclerc9037 who hurt you old man? Let people play how they want... especially in 1 on 1 game. Or are we ruining your fun by playing at home the way we want? That aside, my GF loves mainly the combat and storytelling. Because of social anxiety that also translates into roleplaying. Combat heavy power fantasy is great for this. Or should we switch to tabletop games? Will that be better for you? Great thing about Dungeons and Dragons is that you can take from it what you want and use it the way it is fun for the table. Also if you wanted SUPER RP focused system... Dungeons and Dragons absolutely is not it.
Thank you Luke for this video! Not only did it come with some good tips for me (a few-oneshots-dm), but it also made me appreciate my DM and co-players in my regular campaign even more. My DM has done a great job of keeping it balanced between the three pillars, but us as players also really appreciate the occasional prolonged monologue or long exploration or combat encounter, we have even had one player who's character was kidnapped and he was still there for almost 2 full sessions just observing, before the party managed to rescue his character, and he was there just to not miss out on the story! :D And our DM also put up with a lot of our shenanigans like when we pass through a village that he just intended for us to rest at the inn but we decide to have a good 2 hours of social interactions and he just goes with it! Sorry for the boasting comment, but I just wanted to say that I'm really happy with my party!
@@davidbeppler3032 It definitely makes sense with context, as with any world. Mercer is a fun GM, but he's a professional voice actor and his table is the perfect one too play with him. My point is, that's an understandable, albeit bad take in my opinion
I needed to see this video - I'm in the middle of prepping for a game, watched this and realised I've been unintentionally monologueing all this time. I took a look at what I had prepped, cut down half the stuff I wanted to say and now just made the information available should they ask as opposed to just flat out telling them. Thanks as always! a MASSIVE help
I also would argue about the descriptions; while they shouldn't take up ridiculous amount of time, if your players are engaged they are not a problem and sometimes can be a GREAT way to reward players that pay attention. For example I once used a trick when every few descriptions of a place I would throw in a mention of a black dog. I never underlined it; it was basically a throw-away mention that a black dog was there. After several such instances, one of my players decided "Hey: what the hell is with that dog" and actually interrupted my description to ask if he could walk up to the mutt. A simple act that eventually led to said player coming into possession of one of the most powerful weapons within the campaign as it ended up ^^' But for long descriptions to work, players must be engaged in the world, story and characters. Same goes with social interactions to work.
I once went six MONTHS before my character was introduced. It didn't bother me at all because the campaign had a number of adventuring NPC's and the DM had me playing them.
This feels like a really narrow viewpoint. As has been stated in the rest of these comments some tables love the talky talky stuff. I had an entire session where my players did nothing but talk to npcs and buy dresses (all male group btw). And they loved it. I think rather than stating things you shouldn't do, cause every table is different, the key is communicating and making sure everyone is on the same page.
Thank you for this, I get so sick and tired of the negative effects that shows like Critical Role have on the D&D game. It's a TV show with a bunch of actors being rail roaded along a professionally developed story.. that is NOT how you play actual D&D.
Interestingly, in my online, weekly game, every bit of this applies. The sessions would be horrible slogs by not following this advice. But in the one-shot I ran recently in-person, I ran it exactly contrary to this advice. Everything you're saying not to do, I absolutely did. And there, it was incredibly successful. The lesson I take away from both experiences is the importance of knowing your audience. My weekly game is more action-oriented because that's what my players want. My one-shot was cinematic because that's what those players wanted. Both are successful, because both groups knew what the boundaries and expectations are.
It's all incredibly subjective to both the DM (mostly around their experience as a DM and their creativity), as well as the groups expectations. The thing with it is that 'most' groups will have at least 1-2 who love RP, at least 1-2 who love combat, 1-2 who loves a mix of everything and at least 1 who doesn't really care, they just want to play and escape reality for a bit lol. The reason most of this advise rings true for most is by having too much focus on monologues, combat, social interaction etc, you are essentially either taking away player agency (excessive monologues) or you are going to bore the combat/social lovers when putting too much focus on the other area. So this advice is great while you get to know your group. But once you do, then obviously do whatever makes everyone happy!
Tbh some of this stuff just depends on who you're playing with lol I play with a bunch of theatre kids so talky talky is like 80% of what we actually enjoy about DnD, it's not like we don't play other systems that are primarily about the social interaction and contain very little "gameplay", but when we do play DnD those habits bleed over and we tend to have a lot of long in-character conversations because that's just what we like doing. As long as we don't bring those habits into other groups that are less into the whole performance thing there's nothing wrong with that. If a group doesn't vibe with you look for a different one that does, it's way more fun when you all like the game for the same reasons.
I am running my own campaign with my friend and brother, and your advise has made me a better DM although I am still new at this I am getting better at it. I also like how straightforward you are with your answers and tips, they are great. P.S. I would eat bacon every day if I could.
Sometimes as a GM it's a cool idea to conspire with players for certain specific parts of character stories. For example, after the party's warlock died, his imp survived, so we talked to the GM to make a conflict between the warlock's new character and the imp, hinting that she has been manipulating the warlock all along......
Number 3 happened to me once, except I don’t think the dm even had a plan because they kept responding with a "jus trust me" type response and leave me out of the game, while INTRODUCING OTHER PLAYERS and the players started to see an overcrowding problem. I was one of the first to volunteer leaving because I was scared people would resent me if my character nobody knew remained at the cost of a player who’d already gotten a dynamic with the others. The campaign quite literally died after that whole ordeal because the dm was sad and wanted to make a second game for those who left, even though he’d already done something like this in the past and had to end all his previous campaigns early as a result.
I think a lot of this entirely depends on the group. Especially the second one. Some of my players for example aren't massive fans of combat, and in recent games 4-5 of them have been entirely limited exploration and NPC discussion. I have balanced it however by giving pros to those, keeping everything interesting by throwing in details to be pieced together, and having entire sessions of combat as well. This works with my group, and they really enjoy it, and that's what channels like this and other DM advice channels always say: Learn your players, only YOU as the DM can know what works for them, and creates the most fun game for all of you. Hope This Helps :)
A recurring element in our current campaign is the conversations one of the party members have with his wife trying to explain their involvement with horrifically dangerous magical situations. These are long back and forth roleplay bits between just that player and the DM that the rest of the party are not aware of in game. These are also some of the most interesting, tense moments in our game that all of us look forward to despite having to sit out of playing and watch. Probably wont be as fun if your group isn't all improv theater people but it's totally possible to have friends who are so good at that kind of thing that it's very entertaining to watch, hope you're able to diversify your friend group and experience how fun it can be.
Personally speaking, I love giving good descriptions when DMing, and my players enjoy hearing them. I mean even the early modules text blocks for players had extensive descriptions. They are integral to setting the "stage" of the room or area your players are existing in. I don't know, maybe there are some people out there who just want your average board game hack and slash, but D&D is so much more than that in my opinion. I think if a dm is describing something and players aren't listening, then they need to reevaluate their narrative and practice their improv skills a little more (which is mostly done by playing). These so-called pro DMs you refer to, I mean they're successful for a reason--they're good at what they do. And while that is nice and all, let that inspire you, but always strive to be a better you. And by all means if any of you see something that one of the so called pro DMs do, that you want to do, I say go for it. You lost me on this one DM Lair...after #1. I'm not upset about the list, it just feels like it comes from somewhere personal for you. I just think it is bad advice for someone's personal DMing growth.
There are other valid points... Like, the broader points don't land as well like saying "have less 'talky-talky'" because some people enjoy making conversation with NPCs, but saying to balance what the party does to suit the tastes fo the table. Or forcing players not to join until the perfect moment in the story... That feels a bit unfair, especially with the 2nd hand anecdote he gave. But even here, some players want that perfect story introduction. I mean, even myself, I am down to wait an hour or more if that means that I get introduced somewhere other than the 3rd level of the dungeon for no real reason.
Seems like all of these could be solved by just having a decent session 0 and communicating with your players on what type of game everyone wants to play.
Thank you for the valuable advice. I'm returning to D&D after being away for years and I have to admit, I learned a lot by watching the entire second season of Critical Role. But I've also been watching videos made by very experienced DMs , like you, to help balance out my "crash course education".
This time i will wright a little bit more to assure that the Algorithm take me in to account. I really like the moments, where it is obvious that you are personally engaged in the topic. Also it was great, as you say "... and WE can learn from those things." You don´t make a distinction to your audience. Love it! Carry on.
In the past I have certainly been guilty of waiting for a the 'right' moment to introduce a player's new character. As I've gotten older I just contrive the S*** out of whatever situation they're in and drop new characters in right away. Also - reaffirming love of bacon. I'll expect you at my doorstep forthwith. Come, bring bacon, stay for the D&D. :P
Wise comments and things to keep in mind. There are definitely things to be learned from Pro DMs, but some of the best DMs to watch on RUclips are the old grognards that sit back and let their players just move the game along, like say Jeff Richards of Chaosium, rather than trying to put on a goofy show like Matt Mercer. It's a whole different style of game.
Honestly…. These tips are spot on…. If you’re an old school hack n slash AD&D diehard. I think most, if not all of the folks I played with back in the AD&Day would agree with this. But guess what? In the 2020’s, and for quite some time now actually, the STORY is paramount. As an old school player, I’ve had to get used to this a little. No biggie.
Thank you. I’ve always been concerned at the lack of ‘talky talky’ at my table, which a good number of players don’t feel comfortable with and so a couple people steal the spotlight. I learned to play 5e basically by watching CR. Glad to see this isn’t some glaring deficiency 😄
As a DM I know I could never be Matt Mercer, I don't create broken, overpowered, munchkin subclasses that artificially accelerated the powercreep in 5e. Did no one at WotC bother to vet them?
Nah, the conspire with your players bit shouldn't be on here. You're immediately taking it to the extreme by saying "oh everything's planned out and do noe nothing will be fun for them" but that's never what someone means when they want to conspire with a player. I want my character to become a werebear, so I told the DM that. So that he can prep a chance for me to achieve my goal. What if the player wants to be a secret traitor? You gotta conspire with the DM for that. Conspiring with the DM doesn't mean "you plan out that player's every single move", you tell the DM what you want to do and they help give you the chance to make it happen. Travis on CR, to use a relevant example, simply told mat he wanted chetney to be introduced later on in the game. But obviously they couldn't just not have him in the game for several sessions. So he played Bertrand. And they planned for Bertrand to be offed, but Travis didn't know when or how until it happened. That's hardly the "everything is planned and they have no fun" situation you described.
Something to note about that point. You're right. Players should be telling their DMs their general vision and what they want to do, so the DM can craft better narratives and more enjoyable experiences for you. This video is a warning to the DM side of it. It is not your job to conspire with the players to write their story. You should take feedback from them, but should not show all your cards to them in return. Showing your hand to them will likely dampen their experience, as it's the same as knowing the future. Having no surprise or intrigue would make it very boring.
These are the reason groups need to have a session zero so one they can learn how everyone at the table plays the games and what they want from it so that the dm can plan the sessions accordingly, starting with communication and then have talks with the party members as the campaign is progressing while also not springing these things on everyone out of the blue. All of these things can work for the right tables you have to just find what works for your table so if you have a bunch of min/maxing power builders that want to go through dungeons and fight monsters, then you’ll have a lot of combat some exploration and pretty little social interactions, do you have a table of thespians that get into thier characters and become them and want to tell a story then you’ll have a lot of social interactions and descriptions of the world with some exploration and not a lot of combat or lastly do you have a table of people looking to enter anew world and get lost in it then you have a lot of exploration some social and some combat but it all depends on the table and what they want
I would claim that long monologues from DMs do not work in the shows either. I want to see the characters explore the world. I want to discover the world with them. Those long monologues are usually dense with unfamiliar terms, and I do not retain them. A few shows have lost me due to long flowery intros.
On my refrigerator is a magnet that says, "People who say 'Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels' have obviously never tasted bacon." I love that magnet!
This was my problem with Sir Bertrand's death in CR Season 3. Matt and Travis obviously planned all that out ahead of time, and Bertrand 100% had to die for Matt's DM narrative story to go the way he intended it to. Travis had his backup character already to go, and was clearly planning to play the backup character for most of the campaign. I get why they did this from a storytelling perspective, but to me it felt very bizarre, like all of a sudden the D&D game came to a full stop and they cut to a section of a movie. Bertrand had no reasonable chance to survive, which was by design. Any DM who had a PC die in that manner in an actual game would correctly be criticized by the player.
My players game preferences are staring at their phones while I'm reading off short descriptions of an area, asking me to explain the same basic mechanic that I explain every session, and then asking to repeat the description that I read while they were staring at their phone.
I gave a narrative description of the bbeg lair as the PCs entered, what they saw and with accompanying music. Built up the encounter, lasted maybe 2 minutes? I rehearsed and scripted what I was saying to keep it as short as possible. It built the suspense, heightened adrenaline and ended with "I would like you to roll for initiative." They were hyped. (Foundry so quick initiative and started, they downed the arc villain relatively quickly, but then had to deal with an awakened warfordged titan)
OH MY GODS THANK YOU!!! I just started DMing (tonight’s my second session) and the DnD shows are honestly terrifying. I like Critical Role but I’ll never be Matt Mercer. I feel like other DMs try to be like the pros and it sets up bad expectations for players. Anyway thank you so much for this-you literally addressed all of my concerns that I felt in my gut were right but was being contradicted by watching the pros.
Tfw half of this stuff works with my group because we all agree about it in and out of game. Almost like the “Do’s and Dont’s” of D&D are really just things that vary from group to group and putting hard stops on things doesn’t really help the discourse at all.
I was running a Curse of Strahd Campaign. My group was in an airship battle and their airship crashed into a burning heap onto the ground. Everyone seemingly survived. Strahd appeared, took the airships egg (a mechanic I was going to use to have the airship regenerate). Group was pissed but made it out of the forest, found the letter from the town of Barovia Burgomaster, made it past the East Gates of Barovia and of course entered the Death House. My group actually cleared the Death House. Upon the Death House's destruction, my Groups Cleric dwarf (Balor) is told he feels a compulsion to check the shed out in the back yard. So he does. He opens up the shed and I describe that he finds a large wooden box nailed shut but that he has a compulsion to open it. So, grabbing a hammer and tools, the group helps him open it and once it's open they find it's the dead body of the Dwarf Cleric Balor. The player, does a great job of describing Balor's disbelief and then breaks out in some cool laughter. I then describe that the Balor that just did Death House transforms into mist and recoalesces into Strahd Von Zarivich. The player character then says "Welcome to Barovia!" and Strahd disappears leaving the party with the Dead Cleric in the wooden box. My other players where stunned and I left it on that cliff hanger for the night. I had conspired with that player that his character had died in the airship crash and Strahd had used illusion magic to become him and even had cast a major illusion spell to have himself appear and steal the airship egg and run off on it. It turned out fantastic. Everyone couldn't wait for the next session to see what happened next and how I and the player were going to resolve the clerics death. So conspiring with another player can work really well. He played his character exactly as if it was the Cleric, and if anything bad happens to him that it would be Strahd toying with the other characters so the Cleric could possibly die in the Death House, however I gave him a bit of extra plot armor as I could not see Strahd let himself get perilously injured due to his arrogance but that he would also not use any of his vastly superior power to actually make Death House easier for the players. He would gladly let them die if they made mistakes but do his part as a "Cleric" when called upon to do so. Just need to sit down and hash it out with the player you are conspiring with and make it believable.
Yeah, this is very hit or miss with the long speeches. My buddy had a character that all the players fell in love with, when he died he went on a 5 minute monologue and we all loved it and ate it up! It works when everyone is on the same page
Thank you for pointing out the problem of perfect introduction. Two of my friends couldn't participate in two sessions because new dm waited for the perfect moment introduction. We had to sit with him and explain that we don't care about small story inconsistancy as long all of us can play together
I'm definitely not an experienced DM but as far as PVP goes, I think it can be a super cool storytelling device even outside of a show, IF and ONLY IF 1) it makes sense and was foreshadowed/built up as opposed to just randomly starting, and 2) the players are either mature or close friends (preferably both). if the circumstances are right, PVP can be awesome, you just have to be careful
For #3, I actually had it PERFECTLY aligned in my campaign; a tavernkeep had his wife kidnapped by bandits who were holding her ransom in his own house. The party decided to try to stealthily save her, and the tavernkeep decided to tag along (due to all 3 making persuasion rolls under 10 lol) Fast forward a bit, the session ends right before they enter the house. Over the week, another friend asks to join the game and gives me a character she made. Lightbulbs pop up, I ask if she's okay being the tavernkeep's wife, and she agreed. So next session, it's less than 15 minutes of the session before she's introduced into the party
The DM and a player has conspired for a story beat at the end of one of the adventrue, but it was where a player wanted to retire his character, so the DM sent him out in a blaze of glory type of thing. But it was set up between the two on a "If you guys manage to beat the BBEG, and he tries to escape, chase after him" was about all the conspiring that took place. It ended up with the character in a crashing helicopter heroically punching a drake in the face to save the city from an engineered plague. Also, I have had PvP in my games, but, it was to cover a big exposition dump. Basically what the DM did was hand us a bunch of high level character sheets, divided us into two groups, and had us play out the titanic clash between two sides that our characters had discovered in the history books. It got us invested in the lore, and the GM didn't have to narrate it all. The GM had multiple outs for the story based on which side won and so on.
I actually have to push back on #5 there, specifically where you say NOT to plan things out with your players. My first campaign that I worked on, one of my players came to me with the idea that he wanted to betray the rest of the party, and also wanted his character to die. Naturally, my story senses were tingling, so we talked about it, discussed the general situation which would best facilitate what he wanted with his character, and then we moved forward with it. He knew his character was not aligned with the party's goals, but the character wasn't aware, because he was being deceived by his patron deity. Then, later on, when he was on a side quest for one of the NPCs who the party had grown attached to, he tried pulling a Plane Shift-as-banishment move on one of my enemy characters, the save succeeded, and then that character made an Arcana check to figure out the spell being used, succeeded, and told one of her allies, who then turned the same trick back on him, and he failed. I kept most of the finer details hidden, but we both knew where things were probably going to end up. This still gave me the ability to surprise all of the players with new developments, and keep things interesting, and when his character ended up banished into the Negative Energy Plane without any spell slots to get himself back, the rest of the party was shocked, awed, and a bit hurt knowing that he was gone, all because I planned to do something with a player. Then, the tension and investment everyone had during the attempted resurrection ritual (I took Matt Mercer's resurrection rules, because otherwise death can become pretty damn cheap at higher levels) was palpable. It was only an online game, but everyone was engaged, everyone was trying to make it work, and even though it failed (I rolled a Nat 2 on the check), I was willing to let it succeed because everyone had done such a good job of RPing that ritual. Planning isn't a bad thing in D&D, and I think it's generally a better idea to know where you want your character to go, and to discuss that with your DM beforehand so they can help move you there. The DM's job isn't to *rig* the game to reach that ending, but to add elements into the game that help push towards what the players *want* to do. Dice can still do crazy things, and they shouldn't be defied, but planning things out gives sessions structure, and that can help make things more engaging than a free-for-all sandbox. My players and I come up with their beginning, and their endings, but everything that happens in the middle is up to the party choices, and the dice.
These are all good points and I think it's important to understand the audience for a game. In the big streamed games the audience for that game are the people watching the stream but in a "home" game the audience are the players. So the game should focus on them and what they enjoy rather than an external audience.
I allowed PVP exactly one time ever so far. And that was my group's (and mine) very first session ever. It was meant as a tutorial/character introduction scenario and worked perfectly, despite us all being complete newbies. The whole thing took place in a tavern during a storm from which they all sought shelter but with no money to rent a room. None of the PCs knew each other, except our two orphaned elven sisters, a druid and a fighter, who arrived at the start of the session. The others, our rogue, sitting in the corner, our cleric, at the bar, and our dwarven bard, playing his lute, already drunk on a small stage, were already there. Other than them there was just the barkeeper and a single other guest, a merchant whose purse somehow vanished. He offered the character who found it a reward. They found out it was swallowed by a giant rat, which they had to follow into the sewers and could only catch via teamwork. After they cought it, four of them decided to screw the merchant and keep the whole money, excluding the bard, who was too fat to fit through the sewer entrance (player's decision), but he overheard their plan and went to tell the merchant. Outraged over this betrayal, the merchant demanded his purse back, threatening to call the town's guard, just to get knocked out by the rogue. A few seconds of silence... Then the bard snatched the purse and an epic fist fight broke loose, everyone vs everyone. The bard passed out first, rogue grabbed the purse, jumped over the others and almost made it to the door, before going down too. The cleric and elven sisters, exchanged a few more blows, then stopped and settled to split the coin by three. At that moment the door opened and the town's guard stormed in, arresting the whole group, throwing them into jail until our next session, where they got to know each other closer and decided to travel together from now on.
Just a note on planning: sometimes it's necessary. I had a player that had to go on hiatus for a few months due to work and felt terrible because he didn't want the game to stop just because of him. So I cooked up a plan for him. At the end of the last session, he was kidnapped by a mysterious, powerful wizard that they had heard of and were already suspicious of, and just as the other players woke up, they saw a flash of his face and POOF! The pcs were shocked by the sudden disappearance, the players were happy that the disappearance was tied into the story, and the player who was leaving was taken by surprise without being upset - he knew there was going to be some sort of kidnapping, but he didn't really think it would be the right-hand man of the BBEG. This sort of planning totally does work and is needed from time to time, so I don't think saying 'never' is a good idea here. However, you do have to be careful with the details and making sure the player in question doesn't know the full scope of your plan - I think that's where DMs usually go wrong if they avoid the pitfall of not letting players know anything at all
Like you said, I’m glad that shows like Critical Role and Dimension 20 have brought more people to the hobby. Growing the hobby benefits all of us. The sooner we realize we aren’t Mulligan or Mercer, the sooner we can get on with being the best version of a DM we can be that even gets more people into the hobby
Most of these can be done depending upon the group. My group has always cared about story first and everything else 2nd. They LOVE talky-talky for instance. I have had multiple time where I, as the DM, didn't say anything for 30 to 40 minutes while they sat around a fire or at an inn just having conversations and getting to know each other in character. Those are always some of my favorite moments.
This all boils down to: know your group. I've used a lot of these elements in my games, and the players all loved it (they wouldn't all the time, but this can be appropriate). Our group usually plays a narrative focused game, so interparty conflict, heavy description and "talky-talky" often enhance our experience. Make no mistake, we love to throw down sometimes, but most of us will prefer to skip combat that doesn't forward the story, and nonviolent resolution is almost always an option in the minds of both players and the DM. Also, when it comes time to wreck shop, we often have entire sessions that are a single combat encounter, and we love that when it happens. I've even put my players through mass combat situations, and been the player in that situation, which is something you're often told not to do, but (when it fits the story) the "Battle of Seven Armies" style play is really awesome. Another thing we do a lot is discuss player/character and/ or DM plans ahead of time. That doesn't set anything in stone, but it makes us all aware of the most preferable outcomes that everybody is looking for, so we can help each other help ourselves to make the story satisfying. I'm not saying that you're wrong, because I'm sure that you wouldn't be, for most groups, but we routinely do the opposite of most, if not all of the advice you're giving with excellent results. All that being said, we usually play exclusively with a group of tightly knit friends who've known each other for a long time, and anyone who joins us can adapt to our style by seeing the examples. If they just can't handle it, they can leave the group with no hard feelings, cuz we understand that we're unorthodox
Awesome video. Another good way to approach this entire problem is to simply focus on the importance of communication, as this is not only important for a fun and coherent gaming experience, but is imperative in all successful interpersonal relationships. Whatever you wanna do, in game and in life, the sky (or the dirt) is the limit, all you need are communication and consent.
As a newish player, I only recently started actually interacting with other PCs (and not being just driven through combats and action plotpoints), and the best moments for me were talikng and conflicts. One of the players whose character I was yelling at actually asked me if I was taking the game too seriously and getting pissed at him for real, and after I assured him I was not and it was my character talking, and we kept on, I felt really proud, and it was one of the most enjoyable moments for me. Because it creates drama and flavor, and not just bland husks of characters doing tasks, where everybody wants to do the same thing as a team, and the only difference between characters' personalities is a catchphrase.
I actually just finished watching Dimension 20's Blood Keep episodes, and it's amazing how many of these points I noticed without any actual D&D experience. They very obviously had 1 episode of story telling and exploring with sometimes only a few dice rolls the entire episode, and then the next one is entirely fighting. I hope to be starting my first game with coworkers soon, I'll keep these tips in mind.
This video (actually, this whole darned channel in general!) is one of the best resources for me! I'm coming up to running my first ever D&D campaign (I'm a veteran White Wolf DM), and the differences in the systems are making my brain kinda go "ASKDFGHLCBLARGAUGH!!11". So, thank you for being both informative AND entertaining!
I think some of these rules are a case by case basis with 2 important factors involved: 1) The DM's talent as a story teller to keep people engaged 2) what your players are looking for in a game. Are they more RP focused? or are they more combat focused. As a rule of thumb its best to go with a balanced mix as much as possible. Try to get at LEAST 1-2 solid combat encounters in per game session and if the RP is taking a bit more center stage include some kind of Rolling mechanic so the players still feel like it's a "Game" and they are making gains even in the RP portions of your encounters. I have found it's okay to have rich well acted NPCs but I agree with the video you have to keep NPC on NPC dialogue to a minimum. Quick bursts. Always try to include your players in the dialogue or conversation and then they won't feel so excluded. And whenever possible have them roll ability checks etc. And if you absolutely MUST have a "Cuttscene" make the non interactable part as short and sweet as possible. (A minute or less if possible with the absolute max being 2 minutes. If it's any longer than that you need to consider breaking it up and giving the players opportunities to react or do something in between. )
1. My GM rarely used long monologues and quick cut scenes. Some cutscenes we were just informed OOC that they happened were thrown in in a separate thread (we could read any time between sessions) or GM quickly went over it at the very end of a session after we wrapped things up for the party. 2. Agreed. Played with one guy who streamed his sessions but he didn't ask anything extra of us and we had all consented.
Why is it such a foreign thought and opinion that these dnd shows aren't just for the audience? That maybe the long social encounters and fights are actually for the players, because as a group they enjoyed that before they started streaming? I had an inkling that maybe that was the case but then I actually started watching them and the players only focused on the game and seemed to actually be having a great time. The DMs seemed to truly enjoy making challenging fights with unique challenging monsters. Also I agree with most of these comments that say this entire video could be summarized as just talk to your players. Trying to do every "piller" in your dnd game may not be what the players or DM even want. I have had a past dm that tried to do everything and in the end everything was just lukewarm and suffered from it.
💖 Support us on Patreon and get Lair Magazine and other rewards! www.patreon.com/thedmlair
⚔ Get Lairs & Legends! Over 700 pages of D&D 5e GM resources: adventures spanning levels 1 to 15, 100+ new monsters, encounters, puzzles, traps, villains, NPCs, maps, and more! - the-dm-lair.myshopify.com/collections/lairs-legends
Just out of curiosity how do you feel about Hackmaster?
Honestly a lot of this is more "make sure the DM and players are on the same page". You can do almost all of these things in your home game IF the DM and players communicate and everyone agrees on the best approach. Not doing that will definitely lead to issues but so will bringing in a homebrew class or a new house rule or changing up how initiative functions or anything else. Successful games are built on a foundation of player/DM communication.
This is the truth.
I respectfully disagree. Some of the points DM Lair makes here are about the consequences of metagaming, which is directly caused by _excessive_ communication between the DM and player(s), not a lack of it.
Also, I've recently had a hard time with a DM recently--he's a fan of Critical Role, and has DM'd our group for 2 years now--who absolutely insists that he thinks long descriptions and massive combats are fun, even though 3/5 players have told him they strongly disagree and aren't having fun. We communicated how we felt as honestly as possible, but he won't listen. So I think this video makes some really good points, and he's absolutely right that most of these things just aren't going to be fun for the games at home.
@@DoctorX149 Assuming you're not counting the DM as one of the 3/5's of the players then you have 50% of the players at the table who disagree. So which 50% gets their way, assuming there's no way to compromise?
The DM is 100% there to have fun as well, not simply provide entertainment to the others.
@@DoctorX149 that is an example of poor communication. Communicating with players includes listening to what they say.
The list is designed to help new GMs who have more experience watching games than running them. An experienced GM may be able to pull these off but new GMs should be wary of trying them. That killing a plauer with power word kill example given in the video could work if the player knows it will happen and is prepared. That could create a dramatic moment for the other players. But it is something that could easily backfire... in so many ways I can't describe them all here. Therefore, the advice is to avoid it.
In creative ventures like writing and story telling, rules are meant to be bent and broken by those with experience and generally exist to keep newbies from running into too much trouble.
About half of the examples were things I actually enjoy and hope the DM does. Like, please, let me be a character that gets introduced midway through session 1 and let me see the other players go like "Oh shit!". I love seeing the reaction, it's a big payoff for me. I also don't mind not being there for a good part of the session. My fun isn't just from doing stuff, it's from watching my friends do stuff too. I also look forward to have my character find out later about what happened then.
*I'm afraid a lot of those were specific to their tables, who plays in them and their good and bad experiences. They will fit those who are like them, but not everyone. The best way to take the video is take the advice that works for you and COMPLETELY ignore those that don't fit you and your friends. You can do a lot of harm to your table if you just believe everything people tell you blindly, even if they are pro and specialized content creators.*
I think the thing here is that this stuff can be good advice for action-oriented tables, but a very large chunk of new groups are, as my wife just put it, more interested in telling collaborative stories with their OCs, than they are in an action packed game. For those tables, the emotional moments between participants, the "cool" moments in a dialogue, etc, and (again credit to my wife) even the action scenes they tell their friends about arre framed in terms of how they impacted the characters and the story and what the narrative leadup to and fallout from that event was.
Yep, this. My group is like this too.
The online group I'm in is very much like that. We all love to roleplay and telling a story. I do personally wish there was maybe a tad more combat sometimes, but the RP has been quite entertaining.
The group I DM for though is a bit of a mixed bag that isn't quite as comfortable with RP. I've pushed them to do a good amount of it, but I do always try to incorporate at least one combat encounter per session, even if its an easy one that will go by super quick (sometimes its good to let your players mop the floor with some monsters to make them feel badass). I do also have occasional little cinematic monologues that I write, but they're not super frequent and in general my players have received them pretty well.
Sorry, but what is collaborative about a dm having long monologues?
A lot of the comments just completely misinterpret the points made in the video
This isn't even about groups that are new to the hobby. My group, for instance, has been playing together for the better part of 25 years (we started young), and we've always been much more narrative focused. Our characters are usually treated more like fanfic OCs than video game avatars (though they are that, too). We'll have a party of five or more, with a DM, and every last one of us has a fully developed "main character syndrome", and we love it. We're all telling separate stories within a larger story, and rarely (if ever) has anyone had any complaints. Make no mistake, we break stuff and hurt things, but only in service to the narrative, and we even have character conflict because of it. Trust me, some of the old guys in the hobby like to play this way, and have been for a long time. Back in our day (3e and 3.5e), it just wasn't the way most people did it
@@ryudoblub2950 The monologue point is the only point in this video that I agree with unqualified. That, however, was only one point made in the whole video. Most of the dissent in the comments section disagrees with the entire premise of the video, not just the one point. I feel sure that nearly everyone would agree that DM monologuing is not ideal, though certainly people exist who would disagree wholeheartedly with that point, too
The last three sessions of my game have had zero combat, but my players also went over time by an hour each of those sessions so they could do even more "Talky-talky". I guess they have been enjoying the story.
talky-talky seems like kind of a condescending way to describe social encounters
I took issue with that too
Yeah I feel like this is guide for playing with zoomers who have an 8 second attention span
I do think it really depends on your players. Using myself as an example I'll play and try to contribute to social heavy sessions but they are almost always my least favourite of the 3 types with odd exceptions for quirky kobolds and tricky fey.
They happen to be my GMs favourite type of encounter though. So it's a little give and take. I'm huge on the exploration pillar of gameplay.
3 sessions back to back of pure social would grate on me HARD. If that was a new game with a DM i didn't yet trust I would be seriously considering leaving the game thinking it wasn't the right fit for me.
@@derekkrumel1407 Do agree that while social is my least favourite pillar, it shouldnt be referred to in that condescending way.
I think it also depends on how you frame the talking and how comfortable your players are talking to each other. Like I am watching a series that isn't dnd, they made up their own game and it is VERY talk heavy. Combat is replaced with drawing and there is very little exploration. The story progresses through talking and finding more information or getting things from the new NPC they run into every episode. The GM also doesn't really narrate much, the story is mostly conveyed through dialog. But it works because the players are VERY comfortable with banter and the story is well written for that kind of interaction.
In my current campaign, I had a new player join at a point where the party was in the middle of nowhere exploring the lair of a dragon they had just killed. There was no logical way of introducing a new PC...
So I had him frozen to the wall of the lair... The treasure was literally the friend they made along the way.
Beautiful
Yoink!
The one about talky talky is kind of subjective. A recent session I played in for a modern game a friend of mine is running had no combat and occurred across a total of three rooms, and it seemed like everyone enjoyed it.
In fairness though, it did involve dealing with the aftermath of the previous session at the beginning, and we were in a high-intensity non-combat situation by the end.
I think a better way of putting it is not to overexplain a single thing and lock a player put of doing things. I imagine during this pure roleplay/exploration, your wife had various choices and methods of input to influence the story. Ones that don't necessarily have to involve combat.
The problem only arises when the DM is talking at their players for 10 minutes about just how damp a room is, and how many mold spots there are, unprompted. If a playet wants more information, they can ask. If a player needs less, that puts them in the awkward position of waiting for you to be done or cutting you off.
@@piranhaplantX While your reply is partially relevant to what I was saying, the reference to a wife leads me to believe you meant to reply to the comment of a different user by the name of Matthew Forish, posted around the same time as mine. My D&D group is comprised purely of friends and librarians.
@Diego Palacios paiva absolutely! I feel like I've been mostly playing in groups where there is a focus on the roleplaying part and I (and my fellow players from what I can tell) are massively enjoying it. It becomes even stronger in other gaming systems. Vampire comes to mind, which to me is almost purely "talky talky" by design I would argue.
Agreed; this really depends on your game, particularly if you're reaching outside of DnD. For example, GURPS is designed in such a way that it's very easy to have a campaign with no combat, or very very little combat; everything is social interactions and skill checks.
Respectfully, I’ve done pretty much all of these things, and it’s worked really well! The key here is communication, and knowing what you and your players want. Some of them are huge fans of those shows, and want a similar experience. The others don’t watch the shows, but have been on board for all of the shenaniganry that you’re describing. One size for sure does not fit all, but most of these things can work well if done right, and communication is at the forefront!
Dont think the video is saying you cant do these things, but that in shows they work better. Either because theyre planned with the players knowing about it or because the people at the table wont throw a hissy-fit/be professional about it. The table I dm for would dispise if I outright killed off one or more of them for story beat sake. But like you say, communication is key. If you talk to them and theyre oke with it then its fine. If you talk to them though and they hate it, dont force it on them or you might find the players leaving.
In the video he says “you probably shouldn’t do.”
I think it's extremely close-minded to condemn the concept of conspiring with a player. If a player is onboard for a particular narrative beat and it would help make the experience more interesting for everyone at the table there isn't really a problem. Matt Colville has a great video on this topic.
I have personal story archs that have players reaching for their own goals as well as the party goals
It depends on whether your group's focus is more on storytelling or more on tactical gaming. Groups with a storytelling focus will be more likely to be on board with a planned narrative beat, while groups more focused on tactical gaming could perceive it as cheating, especially if the event gives the "conspiring" player an advantage or creates negative consequences for the rest of the party. I think especially the example of planning a player death (in case the player is bored with that character and wants to retire him by a worthy heroe's death) can totally be something that the player and the DM plan beforehand. When in doubt, I'd advise to run such "scripted" events by the whole group before, not surprise them with it, so that all players are on the same page.
@@lindenhowlett6723 The advice in the video did not aim at avoiding personal story archs (which of course also often include the DM and the player sharing some knowledge about the player's goals that are still a secret to the rest of the party), but at planned events (like the example of a preplanned character death). The potentially problematic point about such planned events is less that the player and the DM have a common secret, but more the fact that this player together with the DM got to decide and knows before what will happen, instead of just deciding what his character will do.
@@lindenhowlett6723 Me too. And those personal arcs intertwine with the main campaign arc.
Our Paladin wanted to break his oath. I didn't really fancy an evil character in the group and so created a whole multiverse god-adjacent NPC who offered him a higher calling and made him neutral instead.
Turns out Wizard spells instead of Warlock are a selling point lol.
That resulted in a whole new higher level baddie being created for down the line.
Concerning the Player to DM metagaming... I very much want my players at my table because they're having fun, not just because I want someone to enjoy the story I came up with. I encourage them to come to me with ideas for their characters or their backstories. But- I feel like it's my duty as DM to take those ideas, make sure they aren't game or world-breaking, and then find a way to weave them into the narrative. I have long discussions with my players on the credibility of their ideas, and how they can be accomplished with 5e dynamics.
Case in point: my Ranger player has super bad ADD in real life and asked me to just sort of create a base character for him. Naturally I crafted him after Aragorn, but having no conception of either Lord of the Rings or DnD, after learning game mechanics, his intention for the character basically turned into a lightning and ice-wielding sharingan user from Naruto.
I know nothing about Naruto... So I spent the last month working with him behind the scenes while we had other sessions still being played, which resulted in creating a Homebrew Ranger subclass that will allow him to -essentially- become an agreed-upon incarnation of a lightning and ice-wielding sharingan user from Naruto. The other players don't yet know what powers he has in store. Furthermore, as DM I'm the only one who knows how/when the encounter will occur that unlocks the path to be able to obtain those abilities as an imposed checks/balances system. That way, the super-high level stuff he wants, can still be had, but I reasoned that he needs to do his "ninja-studies" to achieve them. He also happened to have tamed twin foxes that he has as pets in combat... so further motivation to keep him from being too over-powered.
I then took it a step further and otherwise invented or asked the other players if they had any specific ideas for the progression of their players currently as opposed to how we started, and wove those into the plot as well. I've also found it a convenient way to reveal bits of character backstory without it having to be narration.
By having them come up with their powerups, or familiar type acquisitions before they happen, it allows them to be more invested in how the exploration of the world unfolds, but by retaining the how/why of the encounters' occurances, I can retain the ability to provide suspense and a more organic narrative flow.
I'd like to point out that sometimes a game at home may end in such a way that the entire next session will be combat, or social, etc. It happens that way sometimes.
yeah and sometimes it turns out people just don't get along. and that is fine.
Yeah same here. Last session was supposed to be mostly about combat and my party ended up enjoying a festival I thought they wouldnt care about and only did RP for the entire session lol. The combat sessions are still waiting for them but sometimes sessions dont go the way I expect them to :D
These are definitely things to watch out for and be aware of. But as someone who's been dming since 2001 I could have made the same video and called it "eight things I do that my players say make my games the best they've been in."
Streaming didn't create a new style. It happens to be the case that there's only a couple of gaming styles that make for good television.
This. I have a pretty big issue with this video because you can have scripted parts of a story and also have non-scripted parts. I feel like this video makes it seem that you have to either fully script something or have no script at all. You can plan things with your players and characters to make them feel awesome or make unique and memorable moments, while also leaving *the majority* of the story up to you, the players choices, and the dice rolls. The thing is that scripted scenes require a level of class and finesse that (no offense to new DMs) a lot of new DMs just can't pull off their first few times.
Yeah I agree. I think he puts too much stock into the idea that the DM on famous shows pander to the audience because that’s what makes good tv when I think it’s more likely that that’s the style of game that their players actually enjoy which happens to also make for good tv. I know that people from Critical Role have talked about how not much has changed in their style of game after they started streaming.
@@nataliewarner6451 the kind of things an audience enjoys are the same things that narrative focused players enjoy
@@nataliewarner6451 yeah for example i hate combat in dnd, if i played the kind of game the video maker likes id want to quit after 3 sessions
@@sybinn3920 Considering he won't allow PCs to have problems with each other, I suspect he does have some interest in story as long as it's his and his alone.
I just wanna share a story for number 6. Back in the early games of our campaign, i had 2 players who confronted me saying they would like to switch characters, but they also informed the rest of the rest of the players, they didn't really know how they'd have their characters taken out of the story though, so as we were nearing the end of this siege on the city where they were I kinda explained a situation where I thought their characters could say goodbye, basicly it was them sacrificing themeselves so the others can escape, and these 2 players just picked up on it perfectly, they realised without me telling them directly that "this is our moment", and because the other players already knew that these 2 would be switching characters they didn't go to extreme lengths to stop them (of course they had a little rp moment of "cmon stay with us" etc.) But it also suprised them.
In the end we had a very epic and emotional farewell to those 2 characters, everybody loved that moment and now after 2 years with still talk about it here and there
It's all about communication, which I think he just has a problem with... I mean he forbids his Players to fight each other. Have you ever seen a group of friends who never fight about anything?
Also, that sounds awesome!
I think it depends on the table. As a DM, I love to fully describe what my players see, but I won't go overboard with character monologues, as that isn't my style. I've found players that also are not super-focused on social encounters, and don't spend hours (literal in game time) role playing dialogues. Your DM style needs to meet your players expectations and desires, otherwise you'll get frustrated and annoyed when things don't go as planned.
I think you should be descriptive enough to where they would get what you would typically take in on a brief look. But leave finer details as something the player asks for, if they're actually interested. Then if they sit in on a lengthy description, it's because they opted in to it, or it is actually relevant.
It depends on both the players and the DM tbh. Some players care more about details then others do. Some want to RP and others just want combat. Ensuring that all players get what they want out of the game should be the goal. If everyone wants the same out of the game its obviously the easiest to achieve but its not impossible to give everyone what theyre after. Unless expectations are completly opposite, obviously.
Don't describe everything though.
I found players won't remember any real details that way or they will obsess over the wrong things.
I try to get across the shape, ambient and function of a space, while showcasing few detailes. That parks interest and gives room for agency. They do the exploring, not the soaking up exposition (like the reader has to in a book, as there is no dialogue.)
In a narrative focused game, the participants are also the audience. Much like improv theatre, which these tables are very good at. They aren't focused more on audience than players, they just know that each person at the table will be just as engaged as as an audience would be when two characters are having a dramatic moment away form the rest of the group.
You certainly can conspire with players to create drama or some minor character thing, just never conspire to solve a problem.
Yea it’s best to conspire about themes players want to touch on through the campaign and what they are okay with happening but not to get too specific that characters start to meta game and break it cause players are great at breaking games
Nah. My players LOVE these things. They LOVE social interactions. They LOVE description. We delight in an 8 hour sesh with no combat. One of my players was my DM that did all these things in a TEN YEAR LONG campaign that is still the epitome of what we chat about and compare things to, and that was way before Critical Role ever hit the ground. The ongoing story was THE reason we played. Some of us cried watching other characters play a side scene, it was that intense. Two characters got into a screaming match, and it was AMAZING. We conspire all the time. We trust each other to just roll with it.
We never "planned" for long social interactions or long combat. We "planned" story. As a DM, I'm trying to balance the pacing so that my players are *interested* throughout the game.
As other commenters have said, it's all about communication with the players - what do they like, what do they dislike, and how much trust will they extend to the DM for things they may not be sure about, and trusting their fellow players.
Hard disagree. It sounds like you found a very niche group that doesn't represent the majority because I have been in several groups that get annoyed if there is nothing to do but talk.
lol your laterally disagreeing with him saying that HIS players love the stuff in the video... XD@@TheNeomaster15
@@alanofyale9624 I am disagreeing with his premise that all players love social interactions, because that is what he is implying.
@@TheNeomaster15no he isn't, he's just saying that's what his players enjoy
@@carterdahl9654
DM Lair: "Talking too much might not work out generally"
Him: "Nah, my players like this"
Me: "Your players don't represent the majority so why are you implying they are?"
There is an implication. Otherwise he would have specified that some people don't like so much talking and that all groups are different.
My players and I can be a little too sparing on the talkie talkie. So I can try to encourage and facilitate it when I can, because I have noticed over the years that a decent amount of the right kind of talking can make the combat and exploration way more fun because it sets the stakes
That one about "the perfect moment" happened to me once, had to sit around for 5 straight sessions for my character to be introduced, then second session that I actually played one of the other players thought it might be fun to mind control my character so I couldnt play for another session, DM did nothing. Lets just say I did not stick around
that is ridiculous and unacceptable.
hope you found a better game.
That sucks, but also sounds like just a bad group all together.
Sorry to heat about that. Sounds like a bad group overall then. Letting people show up and then not letting them participate is really bad form tbh.
Yeah, that sounds like a group that didn't care about your engagement as a player.
Personally, I don't mind watching and just enjoying the story of the games I'm in.
There's been a few recent sessions where I have done nothing but listen, and I was on board with that.
(our party is split for downtime, and the DM is focusing on the other player's arcs).
That being said, there's a big difference between that experience, and your experience.
I'm glad you left that table. I don't think it was a good fit for you.
I have had issues with the other side of this, where I thought I had a decent but quick point where I could introduce a new character, where it made sense that the new character would interact with the others, but because what was going on was high tension and under stealth all the other PCs got very suspecious, and we had a kind of standoff where they were close to blowing up each other. If I had waited, then as things were escalating it would have just become a poorer and poorer place to inject a new character, and I think the new player would have needed like 3-5 sessions of passing on before things would have settled down enough that there would have been a better time to introduce that character.
Not all games are the same, but I want attentive, actively engaged, mature, patient, role players where we all have the same creative agenda.
My creative agenda includes many of the things you mentioned as not do to.
Wish I could throw my hat in- I enjoy all three pillars of the game. In my last online game, I would "Talky Talk" with one of my co-players for FOUR hours after the session had ended. I get super tactical in combat, and I want to explore the DMs entire homebrew setting.
Each group is different tbh. Thats what session 0's are for. If you want RP heavy action and the players want combat it wont fly. But if all noses are pointing in the same direction then it should all work out.
7:53 It's funny. I find the combat low intensity and the social back and forth high intensity. I feel more on the spot in social time. Combat turns are soooooo much easier.
Same I think that might because I’m pretty socially awkward and all but combat is easy Ik what my character want to do in combat way more than talking with any npc
But there's nothing fun at all about the combat without context from social stuff? You're all so weird. I don't even like people, but yall are just... shallow.
@@pleasegoawaydude Socially shallow, maybe. But the way the 5E combat engine is built is anything but shallow. There are a lot of variables, tactics and plans that can be executed in combat. Some of which can have a "social" aspect to it, manipulation of enemies with role play choices as well.
But, to each thier own. I find combat easier to get my brain around. :)
Yeah. Especially when the group talks to each other or improv the situations with mix feelings
@@pleasegoawaydude Just because they said it was easier doesn't mean that they don't value the social aspect or context. I find combat easier because it's less stressful. I have fewer options, and plenty of time to think about my moves between each turn. However, the context is what makes me care about the outcome, and I need the narrative to reinforce why my character is fighting. PC/NPC dialogue is my absolute jam, but I still agree with E C about it being more "high intensity" for me ^^
I really love shows like CR but I totally hear what you are saying. When I first started DMing I strived to reach Matt Mercer level, but I later learned that that was not realistic and caused me too much anxiety before a game. Your videos have been a huge help in getting me to focus on what is fun for the players vs epic highly produced story telling.
I used to fantasize about playing in one of Matt's games. I don't anymore. I'd be an awful fit. I enjoy the 'combat tier' more than the social tier (about 70/30). I get bored if the 'talky-talky' bits go on for too long and will and have started fights 'just cause' when multiple sessions start going by without combat.
In addition there's a fundamental difference between his games and mine. His games ask "How do the heroes save the day?" The games I play in ask, "Do the heroes save the day?"
There's little doubt that his players will win, the game is heavily tilted in their favor and designed for them to win. A TPK would be next to impossible in Matt's game.
Most of my characters end up dead in my games. Just a matter of odds and the enemies play to win/kill just as much as the players do.
Its watching an artist practice their art inspiring us to also create. But we're seeing this art done with years of honing a set of skills. Instead trying the same massive project we see, we're better off starting with small projects. Modest steps that allow for experimentation, failure, and learning... and eventually success. Which gives us the skills needed for larger steps. In our own style.
The problem really is that the "players" in Critical Role are not really playing. They are selling T-shirts and advertising.
@@MJ-jd7rs I'd say I'm more towards the middle on combat and roleplay. But I don't think that affects my feelings on CR. Because the lack of meaningful combat or the ability to actually fail, and hard, would probably make his games extremely dull to me outside of the banter with the party.
I mean, I don't mean this as a bash to CR. But any experienced DM who watches enough of it will realize how generous and forgiving Matt is towards the party. To the point where, as you point out, I don't think Matt would allow them to really fail. For me, the moment I realized that, I would probably become very bored and uninterested in anything outside of party banter. This is the same reason I stopped fudging dice and bailing my players out as a DM. The moment you realize what your DM is doing, you realize there are no real stakes.
Even during the pure roleplay choices. Matt would pull punches. Like the entirety of C1 where they regularly set a fire then ignored it. Like with the uprising in the Briarwood arc. Where they kicked off the rebellion and quickly after wanted to take a 30+ minute short rest while villagers were left to fight undead. Even up to the Vecna arc, half the party was pushing for a long rest while the Titan zombie was casually strolling towards vasselheim. You can sort of tell Matt threw them a bone with the fey wild time cheese to get the narrative back on track.
@@piranhaplantX as a DM you DO fudge the dice a bit; TPK is something you generally prefer to avoid unless the players themselves are FULLY responsible for ending up in a doomed scenario (like deciding to fight a whole army of orcs by themselves). Sometimes the dice are just against you and the luck being the deciding factor between failure or success - when players actually went to their strengths and it's pure, bad luck that they had a string of "natural ones" that push them to failure - is also discouraging.
The players are not your enemies and you shouldn't take the approach of killing their characters at all costs.
That said I do agree that you can't make things too easy on them, especially when their characters have no social skills and as a result they fail Charisma checks, even important ones. It was their choice to build their party is such a way, so they should play to their strengths. If a level 2 character antagonizes a sorcerer with no patiences who is several times more powerful then yeah: you can expect said sorcerer to "nuke" a fireball on your face.
Actions MUST have consequence and I agree to that whole-heartedly; failure is actually a pretty good tool to have in a campaign IF your players are engaged in their characters and plot. But failure can have many forms and as a DM it's important to understand just how far you should go with it... otherwise you may end up discouraging yours players from the game entirely.
We once successfully pulled off the "character planned to die" thing in a CoC oneshot. But that is probably because CoC has a much higher random character death rate than most rpgs...
In regards to introducing characters, one thing that I have had work out in my home game is having the short solo vignettes for each character in the first session. You probably don't want to have them go on as long as Dimension 20 does, but it's a fun way to give the rest of the table a peek into the character's backstory (especially if they didn't create their characters together). Just make sure they know it's happening ahead of time, get their input on it, and make sure it ends with them all coming together. I do this by having the last question in my character creation questionnaire asking how their character got to the actual start of the campaign (examples include "why are you running through the woods," "why are you sailing to [location]," "why are you in jail," or "why are you at the royal ball?"). I use their answer to construct a short scene that leads up to them doing that thing.
If you havent I would also check out xanathars guide to everything, has awesome tables for creating characters and npc
That's a great idea! I like character introductions. I think they're fun even outside of a DnD show.
Great advice! Just want to note - only because I didn't hear it mentioned - the best piece of advice for any DM is to do what works for them and for their players. Sometimes, that does involve heavier role-play, extensive descriptions, and long sessions dominated by one element of the game. It always depends on DM style and player expectations, which is why Session 0 is so important. Generally, though, you make excellent points, as most new DMs tend to idolize show DMs and look to their styles as the de facto for how all D&D should be run, instead of catering the experience to their own strengths and table.
I had a great experience with a simulated PVP performance at the Witchlight carnival by two performers at the big top. It kept the stress out of it because it was a semi-coordinated match for the imaginary audience to enjoy. I could see a full brawl going poorly, but I had a ranger and a monk fighting with metal poles and magnetic arrows so it was a fun surprising session under a controlled circumstance.
Player versus player combat like this can work. The tricky (best to avoid) part is player versus player conflict
This is really affirming! As someone who started as a player, jumped into watching Dimension 20 and Critical Role, and only THEN decided to take a shot at DMing (in that order), I held the bar incredibly high for myself after watching Brennan and Matt weave these beautiful narrative storylines, monologues, descriptions, you name it. I legitimately thought that was how world-building was meant to work. But as I picked up more experience, I realized I didn't have to describe every new place, NPC, whatever in excruciating detail. A big part of participating in this hobby is getting over our own perfectionism as artists, creators, storytellers, or just simply as people playing a game, and I think the greatest gift D&D gives people - if they allow it to be given! - is the ability to take a breath and really internalize that it's not all up to us as the DM (or even as a PC)- we're all co-creating together, and when it's balanced, the burden is no longer a burden.
One of the most crucial things I've learned since starting to watch your videos is to champion player agency above all else. I really do think this is the best core maxim to use when making decisions as a DM / always ensuring your game is the best it can be. Thank you for that :)
Last Saturday we had a session where it was actually the DM who got frustrated that we spent 3 solid hours doing talky-talky! It's still very early in the campaign, and we had a lot of potential pc v pc conflict to air out and work through.
That is so disappointing, honestly, because I'm also a DM and I love it when the players pick up heavy roleplay like that! I've been player a few times and know how good it can feel to have time for excessive roleplaying!
I do have to be fair, I was never in that situation as a DM but I assume the DM also got to do something, like answering questions, playing NPCs and stuff, and that would totally satisfy me in that moment, especially if I am able to pick up on conflicts or motivations that I can consider later in my game
3 hours of talky talky? Just go LARP or join an acting troupe.
@@LB-yg2br No shit. I'm really getting tired of the talky talky players. Put on a goddamn play or just play with dolls if that's how your getting off. Just let the rest of us have our adventure and loot in peace.
@@graysonbaker1744 Maybe just talk to your players? I assume you guys just have different ideas of what roleplay makes fun, but that doesn't mean their idea of how to play is wrong. Just that they might not be the right players for your table
@@graysonbaker1744 I have no idea why people get mad about talky talky players (or for that matter all-combat hardcore tacticians, but the pendulum seems to have swung back to hating "over-role-players" in what I actually see complaints about). If that's not your gaming style, just *don't play with them*. In addition to the (very good advice) a number of commenters have given here that DMs should talk to their players to find out what they want, players should talk to their DMs and each other. If a game has a different balance of the three pillars than what you personally like, well, decide whether there are other aspects of the game that make up for it, and if there aren't, find another group.
Basically: However you like to play, you can't tell other people that they're having fun wrong. If a group wants to use 5e to play a primarily-talky game, that's their business, not yours.
The amount of balances you have to find is genuinely a challenge.
The balance between Long-winded, overly dramatic combat and group maths, the balance between roleplay and gameplay, the balance between players' gaming preferences.
At the end of the day, there's always going to be parts of your game that some of your players will enjoy less than others. It's a lot of lime-juggling.
The best way I've found to make this easier for yourself is to tell your players what kind of game you're running. Because some will hate combat and love roleplay. Some will love keeping track of resources whilst travelling and others may just want to get from A to B in 8 seconds and just want progression.
Make sure your players know what they're signing up for!
I go the opposite direction. The players run the game, I just keep track of economy and ecology. I tell them what they sense, but I do not tell them where to go or what to do. They do all the heavy lifting. I just sit back and let them screw around. Sometime they shop for hours. Sometimes they hunt bandits. Sometimes they overthrow kingdoms. Sometimes they just wander around looking a butterflies.
Also, that balance changes from table to table. Luke would probably hate a session of the campaign I'm running, but my players love it (in fairness, they are patient to a lot of genuine issues because I pointed out in session 0 what the concept is, and they were up to it).
I think DMs should discuss with their table to decide what works best for all of them. Much of what you described sounds like it's coming from combat oriented groups. There's nothing wrong with that style of play, but I personally enjoy increased focus on description and roleplay than each session being solely a math problem.
The talking really depends. Our table is very RP heavy, and most players prefer story and interactions to combat - we've even had an entire minicampaign of seven sessions with only three instances of combat and it was amazing! For those of you asking "how was it not boring" - it was a whodunnit mystery about an alchemist that worked with a clan of ninjas to overthrow the shogun, our party was hired by said shogun to help solve the problem after clearing out a cursed temple. Also present was a cult of corrupt Jesuit monks that worshipped Beelzebub, the demon himself possessing one of said monks, a group of friendly revolutionaries, and a dried up mummy monk at another temple that gave dream life lessons. Did not miss combat.
Combat is easily the worst thing about the game--can't stand the people who just want to do random dungeon crawls.
Like he said, it depend on your specific game. I would love a social heavy campaign, but it isn’t for everyone.
@@noeticparadigm1576 I hate dungeon crawls, and in the games I run, it shows. The few times I'm running a dungeon crawl, I struggle to keep it fun, because I just don't know what's fun about dungeon crawling.
About "conspiring with the players"
I often do this, either as DM or a player, where I discuss with the specific player (or DM) possible cool moments for their (or my) character.
I''m personally a big fan of this. Obviously, we don't discuss EVERY moment like this, but that gives the player something to be looking forward to, and creates a cool moment other players get to witness.
Just make sure to keep that limited. It's especially good near the start of a campaign to "show off" the ideal scenario the character was made to shine in.
Yeah I strongly disagree with that advice. D&D is a collaborative story, it's not 'the DM's story and that's it'. Often, players want the story to focus on them, so I will take whatever opportunity I can to involve them as such.
I'll happily re-write part of what I'd planned if a players personal story crosses paths with it and change it up to include that players involvement. They won't know the NPC's agenda, so if both are evil it doesn't mean a happy alliance etc, but it can result in interesting RP moments where good characters have to explain their actions if less moral if caught out, evil characters can push their agendas in secret without players noticing etc. Some of it doesn't even come out of the shadows, but it will influence the rest.
Number 3: I ran a couple sessions after our group finished Lost Mines of Phandelver while giving our regular DM time to prep for Storm King's Thunder. With one PC continuing, I had him be the reason for the trip down the High Road. It took like a minute to introduce our first new PC, a couple of minutes of interaction and after five minutes (like half-day in-game) from the start of the session we meet our second new PC. Having all three at the same place at the same time would have been lame but it's not like I'm going to have the guys meet at sessions apart, jeez. It was my first time DMing and boy was I lost at times but that's just common sense.
Brennan, and Matt among others would agree with you. Do *not* try to be like their games. Though I have been playing around the same time as most of the PRO DM's; I DM very differently than him or Brennan but my players have fun.
I think a lot of newer DM's struggle with this the same way new writers try to emulate their favorite authors.
Things I do or try to do:
1. I do use voices for NPC's I always have it livens up the game but I am not a voice actor and as the night wanes on this wavers a bit if I get tired LOL
2. I let my players describe their new spells the first time they cast them
3. I do not use maps unless there is a tactical reason to use a map
- You have to learn to be okay with fuzziness. "How far away am I? About 30 feet, you could probably get to that Orc if you needed to."
4. I try not to use dice rolls whenever possible
5. I do not allow party conflict, thats a hard rule. If it starts I ask the players involved the step away from the table and sort it out before they come back without dice and characters involved. It is NEVER "my character" this in real life is always about the players themselves taking issue with something and I am not a life coach go work it out.
6. I do not use alignment and tell my players to forget everything about the system as it doesn't exist. There are no "evil" parties. Alignment is a cool tool but its usually just an excuse to be a d*** and nothing should be that black and white. Not every Red dragon is a psychopath.
7. I have my characters write a backstory before play begins and I work with them to figure out what kind of story they are trying to tell with that character, what do they want to see happen.
- Sometimes if its a combat focused player their story is simple they want to kill stuff and make gold. Easy
- A recent player of mine really wanted to "be a dragon" so I worked with them and their backstory is they are in fact an old silver dragon who was cursed by an enemy (a BBEG) and every time they die they forget everything after the curse 50 First Dates style. But they reappear unharmed in their lair... its a nasty curse. So they keep journals in their old lair and during downtimes they take the journals back and store them. Occasionally when they kill a big enemy one of their lost journals is found. Their story arc is that one day they will indeed end that curse and they know as a player that means at the end of the campaign their character will become a dragon again ... and have no reason to adventure any longer and will return to doing dragon things. So they are telling the story of a slice of that characters life.
- I have had a player write a story for a Goliath fighter who woke up from a drunken brawl but has no memory of how they arrived in the city. All they had was a note to meet with the NPC to kick things off. So their story was a Hangover style story amidst the rest of the game. They would occasionally remember things
8. This is likely the most important. Listen to your players.
- I had one tell me I took away any chance of negotiating with enemies when I would say roll for initiative. In my mind I was just moving to tactical tracking to keep track of time, and where everyone is if combat happens. In their mind rolling for initiative meant combat was imminent. I adjusted how I transition. Now I say, "Lets move to turn based gameplay." That way everyone gets a chance in order. I just go around the table and dont call for initiative until combat begins.
Some things I _do_ think DM's could adopt that are helpful...
1. Teach your players to let you as the DM talk - just respect them and keep it brief
- For example I try to set aside a 30 minute detritus session before a game starts I call: "Office Hours" it allows people to show up early, eat if they like, BS with other players and ask me questions
- I hold one of those same sessions for 30 minutes after the game typically
2. Always try to find a way to say, "Yes" to your players. Not exactly give them what they want but if they express a desire to accomplish something try to find a way to make it work
3. Keep you ruling consistent
4. Have a conversation with your players about what they are looking for in the game - I do this before every campaign or a new player joins
5. Use downtime. No seriously, use downtime. Between adventures in campaigns I set each adventure when possible a few months apart. I then ask each player what their character is doing during that time. This allows for spell research, crafting items, personal quests etc. Its entirely narrative and involves combat very rarely as it is a low risk thing
- I use these to introduce a new player to the game when possible
- These are great chances to "tell a good story" if that is your thing as the DM
These are very valuable tips, nearly on par with the video itself.
I wish there was a way for me to save this comment to look back on later
@@carettcake8752 I sometimes do that. You can easily enough copy the text out (it's a plain text, after all) and save it in you preferred text editor. For me, that would be Notepad++ on PC, but you can use any notepad app on any system ever. The "copy" command works on PC as well as on mobile and just about everywhere.
And if you're on mobile and lack any note-taking app there, you can always send a message on Messenger to yourself, thus saving the comment into Meta's servers and finding it at your leisure.
Or you can screenshot the comment (phone or PC, shouldn't matter too much.)
I just started watching DnD videos (both Dm training ones like yours and DnD shows) and I love the fact that you constantly refer to the fun factor. That is the ultimate goal, whether it's a Monty Haul campaign, a super realistic campaign or anything in between, the goal as a gm is to make sure everyone (including yourself) is having fun. The fact that you constantly mention that within multiple videos of yours that I have seen let's me know you get it. I've been playing for over 35 years and have run multiple campaigns in which the party constantly grows in size because of word of mouth and enjoyment and I can't stress how important it is to focus on both you and the party having fun.
I cannot imagine a game session in which a person had to wait three sessions to play. I've had people added in middle of a campaign, but it's usually no more than 20 minutes into the session (although we did have one time the party nearly killed the new character because they didn't realize it was a new character type of thing)
I love your passion for these things and enjoy the rants you do....
Some good thoughts, and mostly correct. It can depend on the game and the players though. My wife and I play a one-on-one campaign (I the DM, her the player, also known as a "duet") and in that setting, the "talky-talky" can really take center stage. We often play whole, multi-hour sessions with little to no combat or exploration, because we are both so committed to the narrative we are building. Of course, we have also played combats that have lasted a whole day when the situation warrants it.
Also, bacon could quite possibly be the world's most perfect food. Please ship me several packs of the tasty stuff! :'D
I play 1 on 1 D&D with my GF and she is the total opposite.
15% RP, 35% exploration, 50% rolling initiative.
However she loves the stories...
She lets her spells do the talking, or convinces the NPCs to talk it out.
After I was literally talking to myself every session, I started to just roll some dice and tell her the result of conversation if she wants to add anything.
People can play Role-Playing game as they like BUT... when what you like the most is to roll init, to hit and call out damage, and that narratives bore you... maybe you should play some board game instead. Narrative are important to picture scenes in an accurate way and establish the world. Imagine you watch a movie and they don't bother making a set because who cares about the background... it's an action movie. THAT'S exactly the BS mentality of NOOB Role-Players. As a player, If I attack it's never roll dice: yell 18? GM answer you hit! I answer 9 damages. THAT'S ROLL Playing game NOT ROLE Playing game... My attack would be like : After parrying the previous attack from the orc with my shield, deflecting his blade to my left, I (roll dice... call number... gm confirm the hit) ... I bring back my shield and punch him to destabilize my opponent, I trust (roll damage notice it's okie but nothing awesome) the tip of my long sword into the opening in his defence. NOW you are telling a story, ACTING your character, and ROLE-PLAYING. When you read a book... they describe the scenery etc... WHY? To build the world! Now if many people are now morons who can't focus and immerse themselves into a story and lack imagination so much that they are bored when asked to use it... like I said... yeah they can play like they want. BUT I think this video is TOTALLY wrong when saying that's NOT what my player WANTS... DM Lair is SO wrong... he has NO IDEA what my players want... I'm 44 and I am Role-Playing since I was 8 years old... this tips is TOTAL bullcrap. It's like saying your book could have been resumed by They formed a team to beat a bad guy and won... hence your 600 pages book is not what readers want. @ _ @
@@fredericleclerc9037 Interestingly, my wife, who loves the narrative aspects of both the social and exploration parts of the game, isn't so much into describing her combat most of the time, unless there are very important narrative aspects already involved, and even then she doesn't get into the nitty-gritty of how she swings her blades, blocks or parries, etc. She enjoys combat, but more from the tactical aspect. She isn't much for gory descriptions, nor even flashy explanations of how the fighting occurs. That part just isn't her cup of tea. To say she is just a roll player, however, would be a gross mischaracterisation. She cares deeply about the results of the encounter, just not about describing every flourish, strike, and parry. When her character (a Bard) sets up to perform in a tavern to earn a night's stay and a bit of coin, she gets very detailed, describing the tone, tempo, etc. that she is going for, sometimes singling out audience members or dealing with specific traumas as she performs. It can get visceral. We even created a series of rehearsal and performance rules to further enhance and engage with that aspect of the story, because it means so much to her. Everyone has their preferences. Deeply narrative combat isn't for everyone.
@@fredericleclerc9037 who hurt you old man?
Let people play how they want... especially in 1 on 1 game.
Or are we ruining your fun by playing at home the way we want?
That aside, my GF loves mainly the combat and storytelling. Because of social anxiety that also translates into roleplaying.
Combat heavy power fantasy is great for this.
Or should we switch to tabletop games? Will that be better for you?
Great thing about Dungeons and Dragons is that you can take from it what you want and use it the way it is fun for the table.
Also if you wanted SUPER RP focused system... Dungeons and Dragons absolutely is not it.
This just sounds like relationship roleplay foreplay.
Thank you Luke for this video! Not only did it come with some good tips for me (a few-oneshots-dm), but it also made me appreciate my DM and co-players in my regular campaign even more. My DM has done a great job of keeping it balanced between the three pillars, but us as players also really appreciate the occasional prolonged monologue or long exploration or combat encounter, we have even had one player who's character was kidnapped and he was still there for almost 2 full sessions just observing, before the party managed to rescue his character, and he was there just to not miss out on the story! :D
And our DM also put up with a lot of our shenanigans like when we pass through a village that he just intended for us to rest at the inn but we decide to have a good 2 hours of social interactions and he just goes with it!
Sorry for the boasting comment, but I just wanted to say that I'm really happy with my party!
These tips are way more helpful than watching out for the "Matthew Mercer effect"
The Mercer effect is just shorthand for players and DMs with unrealistic expectations and demands of what a home game should be.
@@piranhaplantX My players like CR (I love it), but think Mercer is not a fun GM. I just think his world does not make sense sometimes.
The Mercer effect is a yardstick.
You shouldn't be trying to measure up to it, you should be trying to surpass it.
@@vileluca You said "trying" like it is hard to do. lmao
@@davidbeppler3032 It definitely makes sense with context, as with any world. Mercer is a fun GM, but he's a professional voice actor and his table is the perfect one too play with him. My point is, that's an understandable, albeit bad take in my opinion
I needed to see this video - I'm in the middle of prepping for a game, watched this and realised I've been unintentionally monologueing all this time. I took a look at what I had prepped, cut down half the stuff I wanted to say and now just made the information available should they ask as opposed to just flat out telling them.
Thanks as always! a MASSIVE help
I also would argue about the descriptions; while they shouldn't take up ridiculous amount of time, if your players are engaged they are not a problem and sometimes can be a GREAT way to reward players that pay attention.
For example I once used a trick when every few descriptions of a place I would throw in a mention of a black dog. I never underlined it; it was basically a throw-away mention that a black dog was there. After several such instances, one of my players decided "Hey: what the hell is with that dog" and actually interrupted my description to ask if he could walk up to the mutt.
A simple act that eventually led to said player coming into possession of one of the most powerful weapons within the campaign as it ended up ^^'
But for long descriptions to work, players must be engaged in the world, story and characters. Same goes with social interactions to work.
I once went six MONTHS before my character was introduced. It didn't bother me at all because the campaign had a number of adventuring NPC's and the DM had me playing them.
This feels like a really narrow viewpoint. As has been stated in the rest of these comments some tables love the talky talky stuff. I had an entire session where my players did nothing but talk to npcs and buy dresses (all male group btw). And they loved it. I think rather than stating things you shouldn't do, cause every table is different, the key is communicating and making sure everyone is on the same page.
Gay
Thank you for this, I get so sick and tired of the negative effects that shows like Critical Role have on the D&D game. It's a TV show with a bunch of actors being rail roaded along a professionally developed story.. that is NOT how you play actual D&D.
Interestingly, in my online, weekly game, every bit of this applies. The sessions would be horrible slogs by not following this advice.
But in the one-shot I ran recently in-person, I ran it exactly contrary to this advice. Everything you're saying not to do, I absolutely did. And there, it was incredibly successful.
The lesson I take away from both experiences is the importance of knowing your audience. My weekly game is more action-oriented because that's what my players want. My one-shot was cinematic because that's what those players wanted. Both are successful, because both groups knew what the boundaries and expectations are.
It's all incredibly subjective to both the DM (mostly around their experience as a DM and their creativity), as well as the groups expectations.
The thing with it is that 'most' groups will have at least 1-2 who love RP, at least 1-2 who love combat, 1-2 who loves a mix of everything and at least 1 who doesn't really care, they just want to play and escape reality for a bit lol. The reason most of this advise rings true for most is by having too much focus on monologues, combat, social interaction etc, you are essentially either taking away player agency (excessive monologues) or you are going to bore the combat/social lovers when putting too much focus on the other area.
So this advice is great while you get to know your group. But once you do, then obviously do whatever makes everyone happy!
Tbh some of this stuff just depends on who you're playing with lol I play with a bunch of theatre kids so talky talky is like 80% of what we actually enjoy about DnD, it's not like we don't play other systems that are primarily about the social interaction and contain very little "gameplay", but when we do play DnD those habits bleed over and we tend to have a lot of long in-character conversations because that's just what we like doing. As long as we don't bring those habits into other groups that are less into the whole performance thing there's nothing wrong with that. If a group doesn't vibe with you look for a different one that does, it's way more fun when you all like the game for the same reasons.
I am running my own campaign with my friend and brother, and your advise has made me a better DM although I am still new at this I am getting better at it. I also like how straightforward you are with your answers and tips, they are great.
P.S. I would eat bacon every day if I could.
Sometimes as a GM it's a cool idea to conspire with players for certain specific parts of character stories. For example, after the party's warlock died, his imp survived, so we talked to the GM to make a conflict between the warlock's new character and the imp, hinting that she has been manipulating the warlock all along......
I am here to confirm 1) my love of bacon, and 2) that Luke does not suck. He is actually quite cool.
Number 3 happened to me once, except I don’t think the dm even had a plan because they kept responding with a "jus trust me" type response and leave me out of the game, while INTRODUCING OTHER PLAYERS and the players started to see an overcrowding problem. I was one of the first to volunteer leaving because I was scared people would resent me if my character nobody knew remained at the cost of a player who’d already gotten a dynamic with the others.
The campaign quite literally died after that whole ordeal because the dm was sad and wanted to make a second game for those who left, even though he’d already done something like this in the past and had to end all his previous campaigns early as a result.
I think a lot of this entirely depends on the group. Especially the second one. Some of my players for example aren't massive fans of combat, and in recent games 4-5 of them have been entirely limited exploration and NPC discussion. I have balanced it however by giving pros to those, keeping everything interesting by throwing in details to be pieced together, and having entire sessions of combat as well. This works with my group, and they really enjoy it, and that's what channels like this and other DM advice channels always say: Learn your players, only YOU as the DM can know what works for them, and creates the most fun game for all of you. Hope This Helps :)
A recurring element in our current campaign is the conversations one of the party members have with his wife trying to explain their involvement with horrifically dangerous magical situations. These are long back and forth roleplay bits between just that player and the DM that the rest of the party are not aware of in game. These are also some of the most interesting, tense moments in our game that all of us look forward to despite having to sit out of playing and watch. Probably wont be as fun if your group isn't all improv theater people but it's totally possible to have friends who are so good at that kind of thing that it's very entertaining to watch, hope you're able to diversify your friend group and experience how fun it can be.
Personally speaking, I love giving good descriptions when DMing, and my players enjoy hearing them. I mean even the early modules text blocks for players had extensive descriptions. They are integral to setting the "stage" of the room or area your players are existing in. I don't know, maybe there are some people out there who just want your average board game hack and slash, but D&D is so much more than that in my opinion. I think if a dm is describing something and players aren't listening, then they need to reevaluate their narrative and practice their improv skills a little more (which is mostly done by playing). These so-called pro DMs you refer to, I mean they're successful for a reason--they're good at what they do. And while that is nice and all, let that inspire you, but always strive to be a better you. And by all means if any of you see something that one of the so called pro DMs do, that you want to do, I say go for it.
You lost me on this one DM Lair...after #1. I'm not upset about the list, it just feels like it comes from somewhere personal for you. I just think it is bad advice for someone's personal DMing growth.
There are other valid points... Like, the broader points don't land as well like saying "have less 'talky-talky'" because some people enjoy making conversation with NPCs, but saying to balance what the party does to suit the tastes fo the table. Or forcing players not to join until the perfect moment in the story... That feels a bit unfair, especially with the 2nd hand anecdote he gave. But even here, some players want that perfect story introduction. I mean, even myself, I am down to wait an hour or more if that means that I get introduced somewhere other than the 3rd level of the dungeon for no real reason.
Seems like all of these could be solved by just having a decent session 0 and communicating with your players on what type of game everyone wants to play.
I always appreciate good DMs sharing with us amateurs how we can run smooth games and not necessarily a production! Great job Luke!
The longer an npc monologues, the higher the chance that someone is going to light something on fire.
Thank you for the valuable advice. I'm returning to D&D after being away for years and I have to admit, I learned a lot by watching the entire second season of Critical Role. But I've also been watching videos made by very experienced DMs , like you, to help balance out my "crash course education".
This time i will wright a little bit more to assure that the Algorithm take me in to account.
I really like the moments, where it is obvious that you are personally engaged in the topic.
Also it was great, as you say "... and WE can learn from those things." You don´t make a distinction to your audience.
Love it!
Carry on.
In the past I have certainly been guilty of waiting for a the 'right' moment to introduce a player's new character. As I've gotten older I just contrive the S*** out of whatever situation they're in and drop new characters in right away.
Also - reaffirming love of bacon. I'll expect you at my doorstep forthwith. Come, bring bacon, stay for the D&D. :P
Wise comments and things to keep in mind. There are definitely things to be learned from Pro DMs, but some of the best DMs to watch on RUclips are the old grognards that sit back and let their players just move the game along, like say Jeff Richards of Chaosium, rather than trying to put on a goofy show like Matt Mercer. It's a whole different style of game.
"FUN and sometimes challenging... eeh, often challenging" 😆
Love you too Luke, never stop, how you say, "telling it like it is"!
Honestly…. These tips are spot on…. If you’re an old school hack n slash AD&D diehard. I think most, if not all of the folks I played with back in the AD&Day would agree with this. But guess what? In the 2020’s, and for quite some time now actually, the STORY is paramount. As an old school player, I’ve had to get used to this a little. No biggie.
Thank you. I’ve always been concerned at the lack of ‘talky talky’ at my table, which a good number of players don’t feel comfortable with and so a couple people steal the spotlight. I learned to play 5e basically by watching CR. Glad to see this isn’t some glaring deficiency 😄
Great stuff. In one word, the big difference is the audience.
As a DM I know I could never be Matt Mercer, I don't create broken, overpowered, munchkin subclasses that artificially accelerated the powercreep in 5e. Did no one at WotC bother to vet them?
Lol 🤣
You haven't created them ... yet
The one thing anybody can say to get me pissed of as a DM is: "Why aren't you more like Critical Role"
Nah, the conspire with your players bit shouldn't be on here. You're immediately taking it to the extreme by saying "oh everything's planned out and do noe nothing will be fun for them" but that's never what someone means when they want to conspire with a player.
I want my character to become a werebear, so I told the DM that. So that he can prep a chance for me to achieve my goal.
What if the player wants to be a secret traitor? You gotta conspire with the DM for that.
Conspiring with the DM doesn't mean "you plan out that player's every single move", you tell the DM what you want to do and they help give you the chance to make it happen.
Travis on CR, to use a relevant example, simply told mat he wanted chetney to be introduced later on in the game. But obviously they couldn't just not have him in the game for several sessions. So he played Bertrand. And they planned for Bertrand to be offed, but Travis didn't know when or how until it happened. That's hardly the "everything is planned and they have no fun" situation you described.
Something to note about that point. You're right. Players should be telling their DMs their general vision and what they want to do, so the DM can craft better narratives and more enjoyable experiences for you.
This video is a warning to the DM side of it. It is not your job to conspire with the players to write their story. You should take feedback from them, but should not show all your cards to them in return. Showing your hand to them will likely dampen their experience, as it's the same as knowing the future. Having no surprise or intrigue would make it very boring.
He seems very focused on the GAME part of Role Playing Game.
These shows are effectively dnd porn. Some version of the game that isn't realistic and will never happen in reality.
These are the reason groups need to have a session zero so one they can learn how everyone at the table plays the games and what they want from it so that the dm can plan the sessions accordingly, starting with communication and then have talks with the party members as the campaign is progressing while also not springing these things on everyone out of the blue. All of these things can work for the right tables you have to just find what works for your table so if you have a bunch of min/maxing power builders that want to go through dungeons and fight monsters, then you’ll have a lot of combat some exploration and pretty little social interactions, do you have a table of thespians that get into thier characters and become them and want to tell a story then you’ll have a lot of social interactions and descriptions of the world with some exploration and not a lot of combat or lastly do you have a table of people looking to enter anew world and get lost in it then you have a lot of exploration some social and some combat but it all depends on the table and what they want
I would claim that long monologues from DMs do not work in the shows either. I want to see the characters explore the world. I want to discover the world with them. Those long monologues are usually dense with unfamiliar terms, and I do not retain them. A few shows have lost me due to long flowery intros.
I've seen it used, as critical gameplay but with mixed results, in more old school trap heavy play.
On my refrigerator is a magnet that says, "People who say 'Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels' have obviously never tasted bacon."
I love that magnet!
This was my problem with Sir Bertrand's death in CR Season 3. Matt and Travis obviously planned all that out ahead of time, and Bertrand 100% had to die for Matt's DM narrative story to go the way he intended it to. Travis had his backup character already to go, and was clearly planning to play the backup character for most of the campaign. I get why they did this from a storytelling perspective, but to me it felt very bizarre, like all of a sudden the D&D game came to a full stop and they cut to a section of a movie. Bertrand had no reasonable chance to survive, which was by design. Any DM who had a PC die in that manner in an actual game would correctly be criticized by the player.
You're saying "CR planned it out with the player in advance, but it's a bad thing to do, because you won't plan it out with the player in advance?"
Just a casual spoiler for the current season…
My players game preferences are staring at their phones while I'm reading off short descriptions of an area, asking me to explain the same basic mechanic that I explain every session, and then asking to repeat the description that I read while they were staring at their phone.
I gave a narrative description of the bbeg lair as the PCs entered, what they saw and with accompanying music. Built up the encounter, lasted maybe 2 minutes? I rehearsed and scripted what I was saying to keep it as short as possible. It built the suspense, heightened adrenaline and ended with "I would like you to roll for initiative." They were hyped. (Foundry so quick initiative and started, they downed the arc villain relatively quickly, but then had to deal with an awakened warfordged titan)
OH MY GODS THANK YOU!!! I just started DMing (tonight’s my second session) and the DnD shows are honestly terrifying. I like Critical Role but I’ll never be Matt Mercer. I feel like other DMs try to be like the pros and it sets up bad expectations for players. Anyway thank you so much for this-you literally addressed all of my concerns that I felt in my gut were right but was being contradicted by watching the pros.
Tfw half of this stuff works with my group because we all agree about it in and out of game. Almost like the “Do’s and Dont’s” of D&D are really just things that vary from group to group and putting hard stops on things doesn’t really help the discourse at all.
I was running a Curse of Strahd Campaign.
My group was in an airship battle and their airship crashed into a burning heap onto the ground.
Everyone seemingly survived.
Strahd appeared, took the airships egg (a mechanic I was going to use to have the airship regenerate).
Group was pissed but made it out of the forest, found the letter from the town of Barovia Burgomaster, made it past the East Gates of Barovia and of course entered the Death House.
My group actually cleared the Death House. Upon the Death House's destruction, my Groups Cleric dwarf (Balor) is told he feels a compulsion to check the shed out in the back yard. So he does. He opens up the shed and I describe that he finds a large wooden box nailed shut but that he has a compulsion to open it. So, grabbing a hammer and tools, the group helps him open it and once it's open they find it's the dead body of the Dwarf Cleric Balor.
The player, does a great job of describing Balor's disbelief and then breaks out in some cool laughter.
I then describe that the Balor that just did Death House transforms into mist and recoalesces into Strahd Von Zarivich.
The player character then says "Welcome to Barovia!" and Strahd disappears leaving the party with the Dead Cleric in the wooden box.
My other players where stunned and I left it on that cliff hanger for the night.
I had conspired with that player that his character had died in the airship crash and Strahd had used illusion magic to become him and even had cast a major illusion spell to have himself appear and steal the airship egg and run off on it. It turned out fantastic. Everyone couldn't wait for the next session to see what happened next and how I and the player were going to resolve the clerics death.
So conspiring with another player can work really well.
He played his character exactly as if it was the Cleric, and if anything bad happens to him that it would be Strahd toying with the other characters so the Cleric could possibly die in the Death House, however I gave him a bit of extra plot armor as I could not see Strahd let himself get perilously injured due to his arrogance but that he would also not use any of his vastly superior power to actually make Death House easier for the players. He would gladly let them die if they made mistakes but do his part as a "Cleric" when called upon to do so.
Just need to sit down and hash it out with the player you are conspiring with and make it believable.
Yeah, this is very hit or miss with the long speeches. My buddy had a character that all the players fell in love with, when he died he went on a 5 minute monologue and we all loved it and ate it up! It works when everyone is on the same page
Thank you for pointing out the problem of perfect introduction. Two of my friends couldn't participate in two sessions because new dm waited for the perfect moment introduction. We had to sit with him and explain that we don't care about small story inconsistancy as long all of us can play together
I'm definitely not an experienced DM but as far as PVP goes, I think it can be a super cool storytelling device even outside of a show, IF and ONLY IF 1) it makes sense and was foreshadowed/built up as opposed to just randomly starting, and 2) the players are either mature or close friends (preferably both). if the circumstances are right, PVP can be awesome, you just have to be careful
For #3, I actually had it PERFECTLY aligned in my campaign; a tavernkeep had his wife kidnapped by bandits who were holding her ransom in his own house. The party decided to try to stealthily save her, and the tavernkeep decided to tag along (due to all 3 making persuasion rolls under 10 lol)
Fast forward a bit, the session ends right before they enter the house. Over the week, another friend asks to join the game and gives me a character she made. Lightbulbs pop up, I ask if she's okay being the tavernkeep's wife, and she agreed. So next session, it's less than 15 minutes of the session before she's introduced into the party
The DM and a player has conspired for a story beat at the end of one of the adventrue, but it was where a player wanted to retire his character, so the DM sent him out in a blaze of glory type of thing. But it was set up between the two on a "If you guys manage to beat the BBEG, and he tries to escape, chase after him" was about all the conspiring that took place. It ended up with the character in a crashing helicopter heroically punching a drake in the face to save the city from an engineered plague.
Also, I have had PvP in my games, but, it was to cover a big exposition dump. Basically what the DM did was hand us a bunch of high level character sheets, divided us into two groups, and had us play out the titanic clash between two sides that our characters had discovered in the history books. It got us invested in the lore, and the GM didn't have to narrate it all. The GM had multiple outs for the story based on which side won and so on.
I actually have to push back on #5 there, specifically where you say NOT to plan things out with your players. My first campaign that I worked on, one of my players came to me with the idea that he wanted to betray the rest of the party, and also wanted his character to die. Naturally, my story senses were tingling, so we talked about it, discussed the general situation which would best facilitate what he wanted with his character, and then we moved forward with it. He knew his character was not aligned with the party's goals, but the character wasn't aware, because he was being deceived by his patron deity. Then, later on, when he was on a side quest for one of the NPCs who the party had grown attached to, he tried pulling a Plane Shift-as-banishment move on one of my enemy characters, the save succeeded, and then that character made an Arcana check to figure out the spell being used, succeeded, and told one of her allies, who then turned the same trick back on him, and he failed. I kept most of the finer details hidden, but we both knew where things were probably going to end up. This still gave me the ability to surprise all of the players with new developments, and keep things interesting, and when his character ended up banished into the Negative Energy Plane without any spell slots to get himself back, the rest of the party was shocked, awed, and a bit hurt knowing that he was gone, all because I planned to do something with a player. Then, the tension and investment everyone had during the attempted resurrection ritual (I took Matt Mercer's resurrection rules, because otherwise death can become pretty damn cheap at higher levels) was palpable. It was only an online game, but everyone was engaged, everyone was trying to make it work, and even though it failed (I rolled a Nat 2 on the check), I was willing to let it succeed because everyone had done such a good job of RPing that ritual.
Planning isn't a bad thing in D&D, and I think it's generally a better idea to know where you want your character to go, and to discuss that with your DM beforehand so they can help move you there. The DM's job isn't to *rig* the game to reach that ending, but to add elements into the game that help push towards what the players *want* to do. Dice can still do crazy things, and they shouldn't be defied, but planning things out gives sessions structure, and that can help make things more engaging than a free-for-all sandbox. My players and I come up with their beginning, and their endings, but everything that happens in the middle is up to the party choices, and the dice.
These are all good points and I think it's important to understand the audience for a game. In the big streamed games the audience for that game are the people watching the stream but in a "home" game the audience are the players. So the game should focus on them and what they enjoy rather than an external audience.
I allowed PVP exactly one time ever so far. And that was my group's (and mine) very first session ever.
It was meant as a tutorial/character introduction scenario and worked perfectly, despite us all being complete newbies.
The whole thing took place in a tavern during a storm from which they all sought shelter but with no money to rent a room. None of the PCs knew each other, except our two orphaned elven sisters, a druid and a fighter, who arrived at the start of the session. The others, our rogue, sitting in the corner, our cleric, at the bar, and our dwarven bard, playing his lute, already drunk on a small stage, were already there.
Other than them there was just the barkeeper and a single other guest, a merchant whose purse somehow vanished. He offered the character who found it a reward.
They found out it was swallowed by a giant rat, which they had to follow into the sewers and could only catch via teamwork. After they cought it, four of them decided to screw the merchant and keep the whole money, excluding the bard, who was too fat to fit through the sewer entrance (player's decision), but he overheard their plan and went to tell the merchant. Outraged over this betrayal, the merchant demanded his purse back, threatening to call the town's guard, just to get knocked out by the rogue.
A few seconds of silence...
Then the bard snatched the purse and an epic fist fight broke loose, everyone vs everyone. The bard passed out first, rogue grabbed the purse, jumped over the others and almost made it to the door, before going down too. The cleric and elven sisters, exchanged a few more blows, then stopped and settled to split the coin by three.
At that moment the door opened and the town's guard stormed in, arresting the whole group, throwing them into jail until our next session, where they got to know each other closer and decided to travel together from now on.
Just a note on planning: sometimes it's necessary. I had a player that had to go on hiatus for a few months due to work and felt terrible because he didn't want the game to stop just because of him. So I cooked up a plan for him. At the end of the last session, he was kidnapped by a mysterious, powerful wizard that they had heard of and were already suspicious of, and just as the other players woke up, they saw a flash of his face and POOF!
The pcs were shocked by the sudden disappearance, the players were happy that the disappearance was tied into the story, and the player who was leaving was taken by surprise without being upset - he knew there was going to be some sort of kidnapping, but he didn't really think it would be the right-hand man of the BBEG.
This sort of planning totally does work and is needed from time to time, so I don't think saying 'never' is a good idea here. However, you do have to be careful with the details and making sure the player in question doesn't know the full scope of your plan - I think that's where DMs usually go wrong if they avoid the pitfall of not letting players know anything at all
Algorithm, give that guy a cookie. As for me, I'd like the bacon, if you please.
This was really helpful for me thanks. I definitely have expectation issues forgetting the shows are changed for audiences.
Just have to say, love that picture with the Gelatenous Cube in the background with the Tabaxi floating in it.
Like you said, I’m glad that shows like Critical Role and Dimension 20 have brought more people to the hobby. Growing the hobby benefits all of us. The sooner we realize we aren’t Mulligan or Mercer, the sooner we can get on with being the best version of a DM we can be that even gets more people into the hobby
Most of these can be done depending upon the group. My group has always cared about story first and everything else 2nd. They LOVE talky-talky for instance. I have had multiple time where I, as the DM, didn't say anything for 30 to 40 minutes while they sat around a fire or at an inn just having conversations and getting to know each other in character. Those are always some of my favorite moments.
This all boils down to: know your group. I've used a lot of these elements in my games, and the players all loved it (they wouldn't all the time, but this can be appropriate). Our group usually plays a narrative focused game, so interparty conflict, heavy description and "talky-talky" often enhance our experience. Make no mistake, we love to throw down sometimes, but most of us will prefer to skip combat that doesn't forward the story, and nonviolent resolution is almost always an option in the minds of both players and the DM. Also, when it comes time to wreck shop, we often have entire sessions that are a single combat encounter, and we love that when it happens. I've even put my players through mass combat situations, and been the player in that situation, which is something you're often told not to do, but (when it fits the story) the "Battle of Seven Armies" style play is really awesome. Another thing we do a lot is discuss player/character and/ or DM plans ahead of time. That doesn't set anything in stone, but it makes us all aware of the most preferable outcomes that everybody is looking for, so we can help each other help ourselves to make the story satisfying. I'm not saying that you're wrong, because I'm sure that you wouldn't be, for most groups, but we routinely do the opposite of most, if not all of the advice you're giving with excellent results. All that being said, we usually play exclusively with a group of tightly knit friends who've known each other for a long time, and anyone who joins us can adapt to our style by seeing the examples. If they just can't handle it, they can leave the group with no hard feelings, cuz we understand that we're unorthodox
Awesome video. Another good way to approach this entire problem is to simply focus on the importance of communication, as this is not only important for a fun and coherent gaming experience, but is imperative in all successful interpersonal relationships. Whatever you wanna do, in game and in life, the sky (or the dirt) is the limit, all you need are communication and consent.
As a newish player, I only recently started actually interacting with other PCs (and not being just driven through combats and action plotpoints), and the best moments for me were talikng and conflicts. One of the players whose character I was yelling at actually asked me if I was taking the game too seriously and getting pissed at him for real, and after I assured him I was not and it was my character talking, and we kept on, I felt really proud, and it was one of the most enjoyable moments for me. Because it creates drama and flavor, and not just bland husks of characters doing tasks, where everybody wants to do the same thing as a team, and the only difference between characters' personalities is a catchphrase.
I actually just finished watching Dimension 20's Blood Keep episodes, and it's amazing how many of these points I noticed without any actual D&D experience. They very obviously had 1 episode of story telling and exploring with sometimes only a few dice rolls the entire episode, and then the next one is entirely fighting. I hope to be starting my first game with coworkers soon, I'll keep these tips in mind.
This video (actually, this whole darned channel in general!) is one of the best resources for me! I'm coming up to running my first ever D&D campaign (I'm a veteran White Wolf DM), and the differences in the systems are making my brain kinda go "ASKDFGHLCBLARGAUGH!!11".
So, thank you for being both informative AND entertaining!
The “talkie, talkie” issue is occurring in my game now. I am a new DM running COS, and I can’t get my players to venture outside the walls of Vallaki.
I think some of these rules are a case by case basis with 2 important factors involved: 1) The DM's talent as a story teller to keep people engaged 2) what your players are looking for in a game. Are they more RP focused? or are they more combat focused. As a rule of thumb its best to go with a balanced mix as much as possible. Try to get at LEAST 1-2 solid combat encounters in per game session and if the RP is taking a bit more center stage include some kind of Rolling mechanic so the players still feel like it's a "Game" and they are making gains even in the RP portions of your encounters.
I have found it's okay to have rich well acted NPCs but I agree with the video you have to keep NPC on NPC dialogue to a minimum. Quick bursts. Always try to include your players in the dialogue or conversation and then they won't feel so excluded. And whenever possible have them roll ability checks etc. And if you absolutely MUST have a "Cuttscene" make the non interactable part as short and sweet as possible. (A minute or less if possible with the absolute max being 2 minutes. If it's any longer than that you need to consider breaking it up and giving the players opportunities to react or do something in between. )
Thanks Luke, for the newer DM’s they made not been part of a live table. This is all good advice.
This video may be the most important for new dms to watch after having become interested through watching dnd shows.
1. My GM rarely used long monologues and quick cut scenes. Some cutscenes we were just informed OOC that they happened were thrown in in a separate thread (we could read any time between sessions) or GM quickly went over it at the very end of a session after we wrapped things up for the party.
2. Agreed. Played with one guy who streamed his sessions but he didn't ask anything extra of us and we had all consented.
Why is it such a foreign thought and opinion that these dnd shows aren't just for the audience? That maybe the long social encounters and fights are actually for the players, because as a group they enjoyed that before they started streaming? I had an inkling that maybe that was the case but then I actually started watching them and the players only focused on the game and seemed to actually be having a great time. The DMs seemed to truly enjoy making challenging fights with unique challenging monsters. Also I agree with most of these comments that say this entire video could be summarized as just talk to your players. Trying to do every "piller" in your dnd game may not be what the players or DM even want. I have had a past dm that tried to do everything and in the end everything was just lukewarm and suffered from it.