Many people will say this is bad behavior, then do exactly these things. Not out of malice, just the human tendency to avoid introspection. Nice job trying to shine a light on that. That point alone absolutely justifies the re-recording.
It's just one of those things I've noticed in what we say, but then turn around and do (and I'm not even going to pretend I've never done it myself. You'll be hard-pressed to find a GM or Player mistake I haven't been guilty of before). People will see some error on the other's side of the screen and just burn the game down as a response and never ever think they did anything wrong.
@@SSkorkowsky Oh, I have absolutely made this mistake, on both sides of the screen. In the heat of the moment, it's easy to slip into a confrontational mindset, and it's hard to keep your perspective. That's just human nature, and the only way we can overcome it is by looking at it honestly, trying to be better, and forgiving ourselves and each other when we inevitably screw up.
Best thing one can do is learn from it. It WILL happen, question then is what to do with it. Had this just today, where I had to fight myself really hard because the boss fight at first seemed just too easy for the PCs, and when one of them dealt an almost impossible amount of damage in a single hit due to an extremely overpowered ability (not due to a good strategy, that I'd rather have cheered for), that did cause some genuine anger. Imo, suppression here is key, and reminding oneself that everyone is playing TOGETHER, not AGAINST one another. Though I do admittedly find it easier to be happy with and for the players and their characters when their victory is really earned by beign clever and playing their cards right instead of having/using that one ability that wrecks stuff harder than a superheavy tank and requires little to no thought as to how and when it is applied (on a low level at that - for all those here who know what that means, in this case this was the Blood Angel Solo Mode Ability "Blood Frenzy" in the Deathwatch game, which is available right from the start of the game). Example of this is how they were sneakign around earlier and some of the enemies weren't quite as observant as they otherwise might have been, partially to really bad rolls, but also because everyone had so much fun sneaking around, breaking necks (to not leave blood stains on the floor) stealthily and hiding the bodies. They worked smart and they were rewarded for it with enemies that gave them the opportunity to continue sneaking when MAYBE by logic the should have been discovered. Either way, as long as it is not intentional on either side, it can be worked with. When it is intentional, then it becomes an issue. And especially for a GM it is important to find one's own Likes and Dislikes.
I had a player once complain out of character for 15 minutes for having a group of mafia guys try to extort the party. He said I was, "trying to screw him over because he had the most gold." I just thought that having a mafia in the town would be cool.
I have never seen players so angry as when I had a lord attempt to tax the treasure they found in his county. They had a HUGE haul from a dragon's lair and the tax was a mere 10%, which wouldn't even put a dent in their wallets, but they all acted as though their characters were being accused of a capital crime. It was mostly all IC, but boy were they upset. It was such an interesting experience I repeated it with my other campaign. Almost the exact same responses.
in my campaigns almost everything requires some form of monetary compensation. docking your boat? that'll be 20 gold sir. I noticed your ship is unmarked that'll be another 5 gold to dock. oh, you would like your ship to be marked? what would you like your name to be? the Intrepid Ruby is a fine name, that'll be 40 gold. what are you doing in town? merchants? I see, license please. no? well that's a fine of 200 gold. (later when they're getting a merchant license) a license requires the price of inspection and the cost of the inspectors time, 100 gold sir. staying at the inn for a few nights? that'll be 2 gold per room per night. 20 silver for food per night. that's all. burying your fallen friend? 2 silver for the cremation, 10 silver for the gravesite, 8 silver for the marker. that's the price on life. you'd like to meet with the magister? that's a fee of- - you get it, everything has a price in games I run, affluence fluctuates depending on setting and area. but the one thing that's constant is everyone wants their money. they hate but understand it, eventually they get that they're supposed to gain and lose money. it is the way of things. my party has grasped that adventuring is a give and take lifestyle so they give gold and take gold. like real people.
@@randomnerdery6511 I completely overdid all that. except the docking and merchant license was totally quoted from my stuff. point is if they're always spending money then when they have to spend money they're less inclined to haggle and haggle and haggle and haggle only to end up stealing it anyway.
There's a field of mathematics called game theory, that describes the mechanics of decision making. One idea that shows up in game theory, that tends to get overlooked in discussions of literal games is that there are different kinds of games. For example, games can be symmetrical or asymmetrical. They can be solo, one-on-one, or group activities. They can be competitive or cooperative. They can be finite or infinite. Some early modules for D&D were written from a competitive mindset, written to be as unfair as possible, full of traps and contrivances designed to screw the players over, the obvious example being the Tomb of Horrors - but here are some quotes from the man who designed the Tomb of Horrors: "The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs" "There is no winning or losing, but rather the value is in the experience of imagining yourself as a character in whatever genre you’re involved in, whether it’s a fantasy game, the Wild West, secret agents or whatever else. You get to sort of vicariously experience those things." "The essence of a role-playing game is that it is a group, cooperative experience." If you're running the original Tomb of Horrors, going by the philosophy of the person who wrote the module, your priority as GM should be to do everything you can within the module as written to see the PCs through to victory. Roleplaying games in general are, by design, infinite, cooperative games. Tetris is an infinite game. Truth or Dare is an infinite game. In an infinite game, the goal isn't to "win" - it's to keep the game going.
notoriouswhitemoth I agree that Gygax wasn’t a hostile DM and definitely didn’t have a DM vs players mentality. But I disagree that he would have done everything to ensure the players victory. The whole point of Tomb of Horrors is to provide a super though challenge for really experienced players. Gygax wouldn’t have gone easy on his players because they asked him for a really though challenge. So he would also have excepted them failing as without the possibility of failure it wouldn’t have been super though. BUT he wouldn’t have played it unfair or left no possible solution or been super nitpicking on wording ect. The challenge was supposed to be fun, so he would always play fair and provide beatable challenges, but without making sure that the players would succeed.
David Gantenbein excellent point, one of the biggest gripes I hear about Gygax’s written adventures is that they’re hack and slash, dungeon crawlers. If you carefully read the layouts and descriptions, there is a pretty clear analog to tactical problems,which makes perfect sense given how the hobby grew out of tactical wargaming.
"A GM that does not entertain their players is gonna soon find out that they do not have any players to play" This is exactly what happened with a GM who was so forceful with how he wanted us to roleplay his campaign (you are now evil aligned for making a mistake that placed a good npc in danger) that some people left and he made their characters vampire thralls of the final boss (Strahd). As a player he was not much better on campaigns GMed by others because he always wanted to roleplay the "self serving asshole-know-it-all" who never really is part of the party. He was planning a new campaign but for reasons he had to leave for some months and after that everyone found the chance to not ever invite him again to our D&D house as a GM or a player.
My dice used to always try to beat me, punish me, or ruin my good time. But, ever since I attached a rubber chicken's foot to my dice bag, they've been powerless to do so. Yep, a rubber chicken's foot is the only surefire way to banish those pesky dice curses.
Seth, I am DM from long ago. I found your channel a couple of months ago and it has rekindled my desire GM again. Thanks for all the great information.
When I was living with roommates, I would sometimes bring home doughnuts for them. The Doughnut shop had an awful lemon doughnut that was from the outside indistinguishable from outer jelly doughnuts; I always made sure to have them include one in the box. I don't know why I was doing it, it was like Doughnut roulette. The roommates knew there would be one of those awful doughnuts in the lot and I enjoyed the tension of seeing them bite in a jelly doughnut, hoping they didn't pick the right one. I think when you're GMing, it is your role to provide opposition to the players but you're not the opponent of the players. Most of the experience should be pleasant but, yes, once in a while, things can leave a bitter taste in the mouth of the player. The tension contributes to the excitement.
Thanks for the reminder that gaming is always a group effort. One of the negative consequences I've seen come out of a "player vs GM" scenario is that everyone else becomes excluded while the GM and the one adversary player spend the entire session butting heads.
There is a lot of human psychology that is foundational to this problem. I think that a lot of people are attracted to role-playing (and a lot of hobbies) because it gives them a sense of control. And that can be healthy or unhealthy control. I've encountered a lot of players and gamemasters with behaviors that you describe and what they all have in common is that they get upset when they feel like their sense of control is being challenged. Some people equate "challenge" with "stealing my control." This isn't unique to role-playing. We've all experienced a co-worker with self-destructive tendencies that doesn't seem to understand why what they are doing is hurting their relationships. Self reflection is hard for people. That said, the bigger question is: What do we do about it? Well, we're not counselors. But what GMs can do in the short term is give that player something they can be in control of that doesn't dominate the whole game. What works will be different for every person. It may not work at all. I find that players with control complexes are often satiated by something that they can call their own. Is it an adult pacifier? Yeah, basically. I'm not trying to be glib. If we want a game to move smoothly sometimes the only solution is to find what stops the crying. ;)
Seth, you should totally run a streaming game sometime. I would love to see you dm. I think it would be very entertaining. Your vids keep getting better. keep up the good work. I can't wait for another old dnd module review!
Yeah, I think this is specifically about GM’s who TPK on *purpose*. I think most of us have been either the victim or perpetrator of a TPK that didn’t have to happen, it was just a combat or series of bad decisions that spiraled beyond the point of recovery.
TPKing the players when they make an obviously stupid mistake is fine, as long as they should've been able to see it coming. Even then, I usually like to give them a chance at *merely* being humiliated or suffering a major setback, if that outcome makes any sense at all.@@wrongtime9097
Stay awesome as well. Also, I'm enjoying the look I get when people take the time to actually read the Scott Brown shirt I got. Again, thank you for putting up the version I needed. You are awesome Sir.
There is a game for paranoid play. You must have fun while playing it. To not have fun, and be happy is treason. Also I just had a BBQ pulled pork sandwich. it was good.
Dirus Congrats for your lunch... or dinner. I do hope it was just the way you like it. Also I have reason to believe that you’re a fellow CoC player, am I correct in that assumption?
It’s true, non fun is Treason, But so is “Pork” (your moderately healthy soy food stuffs that is generously offered by the computer is enough for you....or should be) Please report to the food vats citizen
I also find it strange when players see their role as adversarial with the other players. I think this is a hangover from board or even video games where the purpose is to win rather than tell a compelling story and for everyone to enjoy themselves. Ultimately the GM is a player too & I think they should have fun too. Sometimes having the GM play a significant NPC , a henchman of the group for instance, can help give a sense of inclusion
I do like the constant mantra "we're all here to have a good time." Not something I'd thought about when I started GMing, but yeah, we're all here to hang out and have fun. Being reminded of that takes some of the pressure off.
Hey Seth, recently found your channel and really enjoying it. I can relate to this in that a couple of newer player in my group have difficulty breaking away from the computer game rpg mentality of loot and stats being the most important and one in particular who still refers to the enemies in combat as "Aidan's guys" when discussing strategy. I think a lot of this is because there is a big overlap between tabletop wargamers and RPG'ers and it's easy to lapse into that mentality of "guy/girl across the table = opponent". It is a fairly weird concept to be fair - a player at the table who is on the PC's side, but is also controlling the baddies and sum of all maleveolence against them to give them a fun challenging game - the only real way to get past it is for people to just play! Anyway great videos thanks very much!
Little common faith would help... players should keep in mind that if the GM really wanted to kill you there isn't much you could do to stop it... and GMs need to realize that a player more than has the power to leave if you mistreat them... good GMs and players wanna have fun together
Can confirm. No matter what I tried to do to survive, if I played along with his vision perfectly, to playing it safe to even trying to fight the GM I would always get killed within three games while his buddy would always somehow manage to survive. I never understood the DM vs Player thing cause the DM has ultimate power.
Amen! This one is a old but important topic which came back to me and my table at a regular basis. As you said this is not only an issue of inexperienced players rather then a mindset or even a funny mood the player/gm is in at a given moment. I just can underline your statement that you should not counter bad behavior with bad behavior. Talk to each other if you feel that there is an issue.
I don’t see it brought up that often, but from what I have seen of gary gygaxs group, it seems like they where player vs gm. this might explain the prevalence of the mine set, as Gary is the creator of dnd, and you can see that influence in his modules
Love your Philosophy topics Seth! As a fairly new DM, I like to think I have learned a little from checking out your videos. I enjoy your opinions on roleplaying in general, and always look forward to your new uploads :)
Could not agree more than its a no-win situation. I am happy that I was shown early on (as a player) that it should never be a one sided "I WIN" mentality but that all sides of the table enjoy the sessions and the fun. My current group has had an excellent time and keep asking/looking forward to our next round as we pen the adventures to (TOGETHER)....
I find it admirable that you are not only producing new great videos, but also are improving the old ones. Please keep up the good work, I have learned a lot from you about GMing!
Something I'd like you to consider: A (short?) video from the PoV of one (each?) of your characters around the table, with bits from the others and yourself on the other side of the screen. Your characters are fantastic. It would depend on the subject matter at hand I suppose. Always enjoyable, thanks Seth!
You know who I think the worst types of players are? The divas. These are people who want the entire game to be about them, and if it's not, they throw a hissy fit and often rage quit. There are several other players, each one worked hard in creating their characters and having them fit into this world.
Ego tripping Mary Sue’s It’s a personality defect, you need better players, Yes, they are the worst, and tend to do the passive aggressive thing and try to derail the game, Ugly mudderfunkers
Great video as always Seth. Lots to unpack. I think so much of this dynamic comes down to trust. Players and GMs alike have to learn to trust each other not to abuse or take advantage of whatever tools they have at their disposal. Humans as a rule do not trust new things very easily, and self preservation can easily rise to the top of the priority list. I run a lot of games for kids, and I always explain to them that the point of the game is to overcome challenges. While I personally am always rooting for the players to win, my job is to provide those challenges. This means I have to control the NPCs and monsters as genuinely and honestly as I can. If an NPC agrees with what the players are trying to do, then I will have them be helpful. If they are opposed, then I will have to do whatever the NPC is capable of doing to stop the PCs. It is similar to players learning to separate ingame and player knowledge. I have found that asking and answering a simple "why?" question goes a long way, especially with new groups. If a player does something that seems selfish or needlessly confrontational, I will ask them why they are making that choice. Players are always welcome to ask me why an NPC did this or that, and I always tell them as much as I can based on what the players have already seen. It helps them see the logic and reason which builds up trust that I am NOT actively trying to screw them over. That in turn makes them way less likely to try to look out only for themselves.
Gygax himself was a GM vs. player type (see Tomb of Horrors), as the hobby grew from its roots in war-gaming. Thankfully, that mindset has become increasingly more rare as tabletop RPGs have become more popular. I totally agree that the *dice* are our true enemy, and all throughout every land must band together to defeat them!
Another great vid, mate. Full of fundamental truths about the RPG experience and the toxicity of some approaches to the mission of delivering shared fun for the greatest number, rather than for an individual (whether DM or glory-hounding player) vs that of the group. Shared fun at-table = friendship in the making, even allowing for (sometimes amusing, but oft-frustrating) Murphy runs of crappy dice luck. Keep 'em coming ...
I am embarrassed to say that when I started as a DM this was my mentality. Fortunately, after a particularly bad game session, I had a couple of the players help me identify this behavior. With the support of my game group and more experience, I was able to correct the issue. All the members of the group have since moved across the country and I've been running games with different groups since. Fixing that behavior led to a lot of great memories... Paladin vs Blackguard duel in the Underdark, the Orc Barbarian that washed his head just to wear the new poofy purple hat his Hobgoblin "friend" gave him, the minotaur and pixie romance, Bill the skeleton comedic familiar of the Wizard... great times :D
25 years with the same core rpg group, last 20 with me as GM, I think I'm doing OK, but always happy to learn new things and approaches. Excellent video tutorial / advice.
The thing is, everything is dependent on the group. I've seen groups that want to be led, and groups that want to do their own thing. My current group has a murder-hobo in it, but we just incorporated him into the game by having him play a character who keeps getting the Party into trouble, and the other two character roleplay their in-universe annoyance. And of course in a game like Paranoia and, to a lesser extent DCC (where the entire point of the first session is to whittle down the number of PCs), you are going to get some DM vs Player conflict, because that is literally what every person playing signed up for.
Hi, Seth. Personally, I think that this kind of mentality comes from the days of the very first RPG gamers. Many of (if not most of) those old timers thought that crafting the most lethal and unforgiving dungeon was the mark of any DM worth his salt, and that only the best players could thwart the homicidal intentions of a bloodthirsty DM. Heck, I've read quite a few accounts of people that say that Gary Gygax himself ran his games according to this mentality
Whether people have interpreted Gygax correctly or not, I fear that this is the darkside of his legacy. I know many a gamer who wants to "be like Gygax" and they interpret "be like Gygax" as meaning "I can be ruthless and caustic, but since I am being 'challenging' I get a free pass." They treat Tomb of Horrors as if that is how all games should be run. Gary Gygax was a human man, with many human faults, just like the rest of us. And I'm going to make the crazy assertion that there are thousands of GMs better than him because we've LEARNED how to improve GMing over the years. Worship of Gygax holds people back in their GMing capabilities, in my opinion.
I had many situations where I pointed out we forgot to apply some rule or situational modifier and my fellow players are like 'Why do you help the GM?' as if not cheating is letting the team down or smthg
No person grows without going through challenges or hardships. That is my main focus as a Player: “how does my character react to this challenge and how does that change them after going through it?”
I'll just say this to the title. Yet to watch the full vid. I'll likely edit this comment... or forget to... after watching. One of the people I know that runs some games occasionally... He's conditioned himself and the players he's with that "impossible odds" are a good challenge. I'll say this... sometimes, in something like DnD (or CoC), you got to let a player have time to feel empowered. Feel like their their increased skills or levels matter. This guy, from what I've heard... just ramps it up with levels and that's about it. I mean... Let my Rogue feel like gaining his archetype matters. :-/ Or my Ranger's added dice from his spell buffs. Don't try to overcompensate with the overpowered magical items and go the opposite way. Trust me, I've been a Monty Haul DM... It's not fun for everybody when the solution ends up being "steamroll through everything" because I as DM/Keeper have overcompensated or allowed too much of a good thing.
LuckyOwl Imo players actually like both: they like to survive by the proverbial hair‘s breadth, but also to just steamroll through enemies. The trick is that they don’t like to be stuck in just one of those options. The hard parts lose their edge if just everything is super though, while the easy parts get boring, when they are all that is.
I'd love to see an episode about optimization arms races.. sometimes a player or a GM enjoys optimizing builds and this results in imbalances that run parallel to Player vs GM, without necessarily being due to animosity or mindset. One tries to build stronger builds, the other increases the difficult of encounters and what sometimes results is a treadmill that can devolve to player and DM. This sort of dovetails with issues about pacing and having some squash encounters and not a predictable curve of increasing difficulty. In storytelling it's often necessary to demonstrate how much more powerful players have become throughout their journey through encounters. Some DM's may neglect this in favor of CR adjustment often to the detriment of the game.
Optimization by definition means that you make something better at a specific something, "combat" is not specific, you can make the best tank or the best dps, the best ranged attacker, whatever, but you can't be all of them at the same time, which means that sure, some encounters will be easy if it plays by their strength, but sometimes that will not happen and the best tank will be caught without their armor on, or maybe the archer will be engaged in melee and its not that the GM will try to screw them over, simply goblins fight at range and hidden, kobolds out traps in their traps and so on. Some encounters will naturally counter any optimized build, so a good DM wont fall in the pitfalls of screwing up directly the munchkin or just add a bunch of high CRs in an attempt to challenge the players, a good DM will simply find encounters that are more than a horde of brutes trying to whack you with hammers.
Ross Jackson - In my world if a new character tries to steal the crown of the king then the guards are as tough as they would be as if he would be a seasoned character. The idea of balancing is entertaining, but a bit meaningless.
The few times I've been able to get some D&D in, our GM really worked with us...maybe to our detriment. I've got some friends with quite the opposite experience. Temperamental GM and a murder hobo in the party. As you said, it becomes no fun very quickly. There's definitely a difficult balance between the two.
I've always just been so happy to find someone else to play with that I would do just about anything to keep it going. I grew up and live in an area where very few people play RPGs. And now most of my friends who play have moved away, so unless I play with my kids, I don't get to play at all.
Such a great point well made as a G.M/Keeper I don't want the Players to lose their characters but neither do I want the adventure to be too easy. For me, a great game is one that challenges the Players and rewards cool plays and great ideas but has the threat of some potentially deadly repercussions for doing something foolish for example charging a Shoggoth with a pen is never going to end well.
Had an adversarial DM once. It took a special group of players and circumstances to see it through to the end. As it turned out the DM didn't have to destroy us, he'd built a story that slowly drove an ethical wedge between the players who continued to work together because the DM's villains were far too powerful to defeat alone. The moment the final villain fell, the players tore each other apart. The campaign is now infamous in our friend group and the players swore never to play in that world again. It was that good.
damn I really want to play a game with you, regardless of role (I would GM or play since I do both), you really seem like an amazing person to play at a tabletop with and I love every single one of these videos, extremely well thought-out, and all great ideas and ideologies about being a good person in general, because this stuff supercedes tabletop gaming and transfers to other areas of life.
Great video, as always! I was, however, stunned by the revelation that you’re Texan! I would’ve sworn you were Canadian....I guess I botched that roll!
Gary Gygax himself defended this philosophy... being done within RULES, IE, okaying those orcs to the most intelligent and cunning as they would logically be as their intelligent, wisdom, and alignment would have them be with the full intention of them killing any who sets foot in their raiders camp. Not 'a whale is randomly teleported above your heads by a drunk wizard a hundred miles away, roll to see how loud you scream as you're crushed.'
This, GMs should play encounters according to lore and stats, not trying to f up the players personally, goblins tend to attack in groups and by surprise, so they will fight like that, animals tend to rush whatever is closest, or surround the enemy, so they will do that and try their very best to win, when a GM screws up is when he adds way too many monsters than what would make sense and deviates the monsters strategy because that would kill the PCs better.
@@mornemauvais5873 Yeah, you can over think it, but you got to at least put some effort into making your setting make sense to help w/ suspension of disbelief. Such as, "What does the humongous local dragon eat when he wakes up from his long naps? He's pretty big! Is that why (other than possibly being neutral or evil) he or she is munching on the local sheep? And if he's sapient, why doesn't he just be civil and buy them with his horde? Is he a jerk? Too lazy to bother digging around it? Too covetous or greedy? Or does he just look down on other sapient creatures and just think the "ingrates" should appreciate that he doesn't eat them instead...for now?
@@NodDisciple1 I dont really see your point, as in I dont see how what you say is mutually exclusive from what I said, if you read about dragons you will find that each dragon has it's own reasons for whatever it is doing, if it would be doing that something, for example a bronze dragon would be unlikely to be eating the farmer's sheep, but likely to be fighting in a war and so on. Like I said, properly informing yourself as a GM about each and every monster allows you to run encounters that make sense, are different from each other and something I did not mention which might or might not be what you are telling me; write a compelling story
@@mornemauvais5873 I'm saying don't throw random monsters into a game just to one-up the party w/o at least having a halfway decent reason/explanation for it being there to better ensure suspension of disbelief.
In the bad old days there was definitely a Thing of DMs priding themselves over a TPK. I agree with you that this was stupid and self defeating for all the reasons you mentioned. Another thing that was a bit too common - mostly if you were a girl player - was rape of your character. No, not kidding. When playing with a new DM, I'd sometimes keep a page of precautions folded on top of the table in case of just this. And yes, I actually met a GM who not only lost me my best underaged player by staging a whole whip and chains gay sex party, but then did create a TPK. It's sad, but in 40 years of gaming, I've met players and DMs like that.
Waaaaaa! Dude you have been playing with some messed up GM’s That’s blatantly abusive, not a gm issue, a “person” issue, Learn to spot the crazy, avoid Abusive gm’s have never been a trend, but an anomaly
@@Tony-dh7mz Oh yeah, it's definitely a person thing, not a GM thing. But it IS/WAS a thing. Probably a lot less, now that girl gamers aren't a rarity anymore. I know of plenty of early women gamers who've had similar experiences, and many worse than mine. The crazies are easier to spot now that I'm in my 50's and much more street smart. Back as a teen and early 20 something, not so much. And even when the guys weren't total creeps, they still often took sincere girls just looking for a game, as a chick who MUST be hitting on them. Cause everyone knows girl gamers and unicorns don't exist, right? 😋
What I learned to do, as I find it difficult to not want to compete against my players, is simply to build the world and populate it. Then I just run the world as it was designed, and let the dice fall where they may. It's not a perfect solution, but I know it helped me.
I approach designing an encounter or campaign a lot like designing a SIMS town or minecraft level. I build all the houses, furnish them, sprinkle in some obstacles, add NPCs and creatures, design the character personalities and motives for NPCs, start it running, then introduce the players and watch them wreck it (or themselves) in way I never expected. I rarely ever look at it like GM vs Player. Excepting BBEG end fights it's almost always the players vs the environment where I'm trying to describe the effects and consequences of the players' actions on the environment. I'm strict with the die rolls and don't fudge so if I'm rolling hot or the players are rolling cold that night, they'll need to adjust the choices they make to compensate for it or take their chances.
Thank you for 05:36 I'm working on a custom periphery planet for my part for my Battletech Campaign. And yes, I want to make the trip across the Inner Sphere to get to it dangerous, but I don't want to outright kill them. Making a new world whole cloth is hard work. And I want to award them w/ actual land if they survive the mess that is the Battletech Universe and can crawl up the political ladder.
We had a tpk recently. And none of us were overjoyed about it. A string of bad dice rolls hit us. And we lost the big battle. My character got eaten. It was one of the shorter side adventures based around the main campaign we've been running. And at the worst, I think it will have interesting effects in our game world. It was sad to lose a character I liked. But the storyline left behind could get interesting.
I feel ya My group got TPKed on a sidequest not too long ago (around the time this comment was posted, still haven't completely recovered) The friend who was the DM was just as broken as us, hell maybe even more as he won't stop talking about how proud he was from what he has planned for us (he starts a new game soon, and we promised to not die stupidly this time)
I requested this two weeks ago on the old one. I'm not saying it was only because of me that this video is up, or even that Seth saw my comment at all. But I am saying that your goddess accepts tribute in the form of dice and old dungeons from early D&D editions.
I have had 1 TPK in my DMing days. I was DM'ing Hoard of the Dragon queen and no one was really feeling the quest. they also went through the dungeon in just such a way that they were easily taken out. Its also important to note that my group does 15 week sessions usually, so we weren't going to continue the quest for much longer anyway.
Wonderful video! And you are right!! A lot of the people with this mindset talk such big talk online... but never seem to be a part of an ongoing gaming group! They are also the type of people who will fight anyone who says that the GameMaster is the most important person at the table. LOL Also I see 5 dislikes for this video! Is it the same five angry people!?
I've played with a gm who has this philosophy. And sadly the 2D20 system sort of enables this mindset through in game mechanics like the GMs pool of threat that they can use to tactically screw over PCs in durring do or die moments or to stop them from doing cool things just to "win"
At one point during a boss fight in DnD, our Wizard cast Detect thoughts to track what the enemies gameplan was. We found out there plan (can't remember what it was) and adjusted accordingly. Our game master instead of rewarding our wizard for being creative and thinking outside the box, made the enemies change the plan to be even *worse* for us
Cool vid as always. And it is mostly true. Most people running games and playing just want to have fun. Heck I've had very helpful and nice GMs. And the few times I've GMed I've gone out my way to make it fun. But, I was never a great GM. till once in a while I have met the Oy GMs. That just tried to show everyone how awesome they were. But, again it's rare. Most GMs are cool and trying to make a fun game. Cool vid can't wait to see the next one.
I've definitely been in this mindset in the first game I ran as a GM. I ran a game with six players, half of which were first time players, most of which were murder hobo's, and one of which was the great GM that ran the session I played in. I ended up getting upset that I made an elaborate story for nothing and threw a group of vastly overleveled story NPC's against them with a thinly veiled justification. My GM from the other game just flat out refused to keep playing, that's when I realised I was being a massive jerk. The campaign ended then and there. Now I have a different group who is more in line with my tastes of epic storytelling and detailed worldbuilding, and we have much more fun playing with each other rather than against each other.
There were a few occasions I was playing against the gamemaster. Not a normal occurrence but each time it was a result of being stuck in a linear narrative with no ability to move it or freewill. In a sense I did not need to be there the story was set and I was moving twirls the inevitable conclusion. When placed in a situation like that I try to somehow make it my story despite the machinations of the gamemaster Those are one shots for me I find better things to do after that.
I had, a long time ago, some players who led the game down the players vs DM rabbit hole. At the point of highest frustration I stood up, said I had to use the bathroom, and went downstairs, and drove for an hour or so and used the bathroom in a McDonalds. By the time I got back, the players were gone. The non-trouble players applied some peer pressure to the trouble ones and the social environment at the table started improving.
These days, if something is headed in that direction, I just stop running the game, stare for a bit, then talk it out. We all grow, and I am fortunate to have grown more mature with my players.
I am in a bind currently as DM in game I designed. it's a murder mystery/supernatural action adventure thing skin to hunter the vigil, world of darkness etc. the game is going well for the most part. catch is it's played over a chat software but it works out. I prefer sitting around the table with the rule book but it was a conscious choice since half of the players are sitting across the globe so for what it is, its good. now here is the problem. we have 3 beginners characters who all already doing really well doing what their characters would do, fixing puzzles and so on and are happy going along with the narrative. they are characters who are pretty basic humans with no supernatural abilities. however one other player who shouldn't isn't new to RPGs is playing a magic user, we discussed it and it was fine the way it was discussed because using magic has severe downsides, it basically slowly kills the character, makes him more addictive to it and drains psychic energy etc. so I advised to use the powers with extreme caution, the player agreed to that and we all that social contract was honored... however this guy whose character has other non useful skills ALWAYS uses magic. he fails dice rolls constantly as well and thus ends up in really bad situations, I can see his frustration but I have extensively discussed the issues with him in private. he Is also trying to be a notorious spotlight hog which I won't allow and again have talked about. i throw his character a lot of boned to resolve situations in the game differently and encourage him that when the right time comes he can do his thing. he agrees but then immediately retorts back to doing the same stupid stuff as always. now he Is in a situation where there is a high risk his character will die because of his extremely dumb decision making. on top of that I have other players complaining about him, in game as well as outside. so what is the best way to go about it?
I like that BBQ comparison. It's quite apt. The game is not players vs GM, it's player character vs world. And while that seems similar, it's quite different. The evil wizard wants to kill the player characters, but I, the GM, want the players to have fun. That's my win condition.
I love your channel. How about a video reviewing some of the various campaign settings. Or a review of some of the role-aides products from Mayfair Games.
I've never felt this way as a player or as a DM. Especially when I'm the DM. My goal is to make sure everyone has fun and the good thing is that my players tend too. I let them try crazy shit and see how it works out and if they all die, they laugh it off. If they succeed, we all have a great story. I mean, my players snuck into the Cult of the Dragon's castle HQ by doing a crawfish boil!
8:30 Communication is key. If you have a problem player(s) and/or gamemaster, it can be resolved in 1 of 3 ways: 1) Everyone just tollerates it, untill they can't anymore, and leave.(or the campain concludes.) 2) The problem person(s), leave the game. (If this happens to be the GM, the game probly desolves.) 3) Communication happens between the problem person(s) and the rest of the group, and The problem person modifys their behaviour. Option 3 sounds like the healthyest solution.
Years ago I was gaming with a friend of mine, we are still friends but it did put a strain on our friendship. He was the gm and after making our characters he pulled me aside and said" hey nothing against you. But I like to single out a character to attempt to kill." I stupidly said ok so we played our first session. He tried to kill me but I kept coming up with other ways with in the rules to go around his tricks. After that we got a new group to play with. And he asked me to make a new character so I did. And after he couldn't kill him he changed campaigns made me create another character. And it kept going like that till I quit playing after having around five or six level five characters
On "risk vs. reward" (5:56), it's interesting to ponder less obvious risks than PC death. The Leverage RPG doesn't even have a concept like "Hit Points", presuming that if a combat breaks out, that's already a significant in-genre failure on the part of the PCs. Similarly, the Star Trek Adventures RPG from Modiphius (with similar mechanics to the Conan RPG Seth has talked about) has a combat system, but after running the game for more than a year, I've barely learned those rules. If a protracted fight breaks out in Star Trek and you didn't go into it with a plan like "Let's do a Dominion War campaign", something's going oddly. I've been deeply engaged and on the edge of my seat in games where PC death wasn't really a likely possibility. It's just one way to keep players' attention, not the only way.
I think that the RPG game scenario should be like a freindly game of tennis. The player should push the GM and the GM should push the player. There should be a competition, but a freindly competition. You should push your freinds and improve them.... BUT sometimes if your freind makes a mistake or is stupid you should exploit that weakness so they can get stronger!
OMG. This. The second GM my wife ever played with (my 4th or 5th) was the epitome of the antagonistic GMs. There were three players in that game (3rd ed D&D), a druid (my wife), a ranger (me), and a monk (my friend Daniel). He gave us no treasure, and threw monsters at us 2 and 3 levels above our characters. Ever game he would proclaim that he was going to surely kill one of us that game, but we all managed to make it to level 3 (a huge part of that was that the lack of gear did not nerf the monk or the druid as much as it did me, and my wife realized how awesome Produce Flame is, lol). Come the final session we played with him (as GM) and he starts off saying that "well, you guys have come a long way, but tonight its going to be different" and he proceeds to have us battle a friggin Bodak (a CR 8 creature, for those who don't know). Yea, against a party of 3 (CR is calculated off an assumed party of 4) who had the gear of a level 1 character (in a system in which gear was practically more important than levels, lets be honest) and it was a character nearly 3 times their level. The damn thing has DR, for pete's sake. So we all died. And when he asked when we were going to be free for the next session, we all just told him that we'd let him know.... we only played with him once more after that, my wife's first time GMing, and she accidently placed a creature we were to low of a level to beat (it was some type of black dragon, but we were like level 8 or so) and he literally made one attack against it, it failed, and he ran into a burning building and committed suicide... Daniel and I almost managed to kill it before it killed us by working together and being creative (I was a small creature ninja, and I climbed on it back and was choking it with the chain of my kusarigama while he was filling it with arrows from a distance.... then I failed my Climb check to hang on and it was all over, TPK lol). We never invited him back after that.
If I'm not DM-ing the campaign I'm about to play, I've learned to ask the DM, "Are you a god or a guide?" I get the god answer and I move along. The "god" DM creates the player vs. DM mentallity. Everything you just said rings soo much truth. I wish I could play in your campaigns. My last group had the "god" type, and I stopped going to the games.
A guy I know ran a DnD campaign that was basically a no holds barred cage of death fight between him and the players. A player bought some thick and heavy armour, the GM brought out a pack of rust monsters ("Aren't those solitary!" GM: "Not these ones!"). The players stopped wearing armour, the GM brought poison dart traps. The players picked gear and skills that made them more or less immune to poison. Here, play with this groups of beholders ("Aren't those solitary!" GM: "Not these ones!") and their pet basilisks. The guy pretty much poisoned player-GM relations and on the few occasions that I've had players from that group at my table, I've had to extensively explain that I'm not that guy.
All good advice. I lost a group, a really fun group by being a bit insecure. We rotated DMing. One guy kept amazingly populating his games with special magic items tailor-made for his character, and claim they were randomly rolled. He'd also managed to acquire Psionics though no one saw the roll. His childishness (this guy was in his 30s) and pathetic desire to be ultra-powerful without earning it, in a game where such an attitude is self-defeating really turned me off. I reacted by targetting him and his beloved toys when I took over as DM. One other player understood my purpose. The other 3 got sheepish. It was like I took a balloon away from a 4-year old. I handled it badly, and my approach had been poorly devised. I regret what I did, and miss those players. It killed our group. At the same time, I also realize that I had become bored with the predictable outcomes, the inevitable "Oh, here we go again" that would fall involuntarily from my lips-and my supporter's. I wanted a game less focused on magic and more on role-playing. I could have fixed it maybe by upping my game as a DM, and being a "bigger" person. But, I failed. Lesson learned.
Seth, I know you no longer play D&D, but have you checked out the new Ghosts of Saltmarsh? It's pretty sweet, with a pretty well-done 5e conversion of the classic Saltmarsh trilogy.
I have to agree with everything and add in 1 thing you over looked. Time. If combat with a group of mobs takes 4 hours to go through and you only play 4 hours a week. The GM should tone things down alot and that situation should be the "final" battle not the first. I had one of those a few weeks back and I was miserable. They week before that we did nothing for 4 hours. I would like a sense of completion in each session.
I love that Seth puts forth the idea that an enjoyable game is a shared responsibility. I've seen too many players treat the DM/GM like a dancing clown or variety show host tasked with catering to their individual entertainment without regard for anyone else at the table. It's why I cringe at the "Storyteller" moniker. Everyone should be working together to help drive the story, not being a passive observer.
The key to remember is that it is a three-way contract. The DM must listen to the players, the players must listen to the DM, and players must listen to other players. As soon as one fails to do so, the whole contract starts to fall apart.
OK, you've convinced me of who/what the true enemy is. Next session, the players and I are going to set an ambush and gang up on those bloody dice! 'bout time those smug clicky shiny bastards got what was coming to them.
Sandy Petersen has a story about one evening he, Greg Stafford, and some other guys were playing. One player had a string of abysmal rolls. And after the umpteenth failure, he got up from the table, walked out to a wood pile, and smashed the die with a maul. Stafford calmly replied, "Next time you should make the other dice watch."
I try to keep my players thinking there is something awfull ahead or a trap in every corner so when they explore they do so carefully and end up unveloping mysteries and little details they obsses over and typically end up loving
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Missing Everything [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dTYeMZGzOzw/mqdefault.jpg)
Many people will say this is bad behavior, then do exactly these things. Not out of malice, just the human tendency to avoid introspection. Nice job trying to shine a light on that. That point alone absolutely justifies the re-recording.
It's just one of those things I've noticed in what we say, but then turn around and do (and I'm not even going to pretend I've never done it myself. You'll be hard-pressed to find a GM or Player mistake I haven't been guilty of before). People will see some error on the other's side of the screen and just burn the game down as a response and never ever think they did anything wrong.
@@SSkorkowsky Oh, I have absolutely made this mistake, on both sides of the screen. In the heat of the moment, it's easy to slip into a confrontational mindset, and it's hard to keep your perspective. That's just human nature, and the only way we can overcome it is by looking at it honestly, trying to be better, and forgiving ourselves and each other when we inevitably screw up.
Careful, that's self-reflection. ;P
Best thing one can do is learn from it. It WILL happen, question then is what to do with it.
Had this just today, where I had to fight myself really hard because the boss fight at first seemed just too easy for the PCs, and when one of them dealt an almost impossible amount of damage in a single hit due to an extremely overpowered ability (not due to a good strategy, that I'd rather have cheered for), that did cause some genuine anger. Imo, suppression here is key, and reminding oneself that everyone is playing TOGETHER, not AGAINST one another. Though I do admittedly find it easier to be happy with and for the players and their characters when their victory is really earned by beign clever and playing their cards right instead of having/using that one ability that wrecks stuff harder than a superheavy tank and requires little to no thought as to how and when it is applied (on a low level at that - for all those here who know what that means, in this case this was the Blood Angel Solo Mode Ability "Blood Frenzy" in the Deathwatch game, which is available right from the start of the game). Example of this is how they were sneakign around earlier and some of the enemies weren't quite as observant as they otherwise might have been, partially to really bad rolls, but also because everyone had so much fun sneaking around, breaking necks (to not leave blood stains on the floor) stealthily and hiding the bodies. They worked smart and they were rewarded for it with enemies that gave them the opportunity to continue sneaking when MAYBE by logic the should have been discovered.
Either way, as long as it is not intentional on either side, it can be worked with. When it is intentional, then it becomes an issue. And especially for a GM it is important to find one's own Likes and Dislikes.
The thing that justifies re-recording is that it's Seth's video.
Man, with all that talk about the dice being the enemy, you totally missed the opportunity to plug the rubber chicken's foot! "That's good science."
Fellow Texan here. BBQ requirement confirmed.
No body plays 1st lvl D&D like Texans, "Molotovs and War dogs!!!"
*yee haw, buster*
I can confirm from Texas
I had a player once complain out of character for 15 minutes for having a group of mafia guys try to extort the party. He said I was, "trying to screw him over because he had the most gold." I just thought that having a mafia in the town would be cool.
I have never seen players so angry as when I had a lord attempt to tax the treasure they found in his county. They had a HUGE haul from a dragon's lair and the tax was a mere 10%, which wouldn't even put a dent in their wallets, but they all acted as though their characters were being accused of a capital crime. It was mostly all IC, but boy were they upset.
It was such an interesting experience I repeated it with my other campaign. Almost the exact same responses.
@@ragnarrok257 Hey no one likes taxes man. Especially not after risking their lives to slay a dragon.
in my campaigns almost everything requires some form of monetary compensation. docking your boat? that'll be 20 gold sir. I noticed your ship is unmarked that'll be another 5 gold to dock. oh, you would like your ship to be marked? what would you like your name to be? the Intrepid Ruby is a fine name, that'll be 40 gold. what are you doing in town? merchants? I see, license please. no? well that's a fine of 200 gold.
(later when they're getting a merchant license) a license requires the price of inspection and the cost of the inspectors time, 100 gold sir.
staying at the inn for a few nights? that'll be 2 gold per room per night. 20 silver for food per night. that's all. burying your fallen friend? 2 silver for the cremation, 10 silver for the gravesite, 8 silver for the marker. that's the price on life.
you'd like to meet with the magister? that's a fee of- -
you get it, everything has a price in games I run, affluence fluctuates depending on setting and area. but the one thing that's constant is everyone wants their money. they hate but understand it, eventually they get that they're supposed to gain and lose money. it is the way of things.
my party has grasped that adventuring is a give and take lifestyle so they give gold and take gold. like real people.
@@stanard_bearer Wow. That sounds... like a funny bit for one NPC, but excessive for and tedious for EVERY NPC. But that's just my opinion, of course.
@@randomnerdery6511 I completely overdid all that. except the docking and merchant license was totally quoted from my stuff. point is if they're always spending money then when they have to spend money they're less inclined to haggle and haggle and haggle and haggle only to end up stealing it anyway.
There's a field of mathematics called game theory, that describes the mechanics of decision making. One idea that shows up in game theory, that tends to get overlooked in discussions of literal games is that there are different kinds of games. For example, games can be symmetrical or asymmetrical. They can be solo, one-on-one, or group activities. They can be competitive or cooperative. They can be finite or infinite.
Some early modules for D&D were written from a competitive mindset, written to be as unfair as possible, full of traps and contrivances designed to screw the players over, the obvious example being the Tomb of Horrors - but here are some quotes from the man who designed the Tomb of Horrors: "The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs"
"There is no winning or losing, but rather the value is in the experience of imagining yourself as a character in whatever genre you’re involved in, whether it’s a fantasy game, the Wild West, secret agents or whatever else. You get to sort of vicariously experience those things."
"The essence of a role-playing game is that it is a group, cooperative experience."
If you're running the original Tomb of Horrors, going by the philosophy of the person who wrote the module, your priority as GM should be to do everything you can within the module as written to see the PCs through to victory.
Roleplaying games in general are, by design, infinite, cooperative games. Tetris is an infinite game. Truth or Dare is an infinite game. In an infinite game, the goal isn't to "win" - it's to keep the game going.
That's not just a theory. It's a Game Theory.
notoriouswhitemoth I agree that Gygax wasn’t a hostile DM and definitely didn’t have a DM vs players mentality. But I disagree that he would have done everything to ensure the players victory. The whole point of Tomb of Horrors is to provide a super though challenge for really experienced players. Gygax wouldn’t have gone easy on his players because they asked him for a really though challenge. So he would also have excepted them failing as without the possibility of failure it wouldn’t have been super though. BUT he wouldn’t have played it unfair or left no possible solution or been super nitpicking on wording ect. The challenge was supposed to be fun, so he would always play fair and provide beatable challenges, but without making sure that the players would succeed.
@@davidgantenbein9362 Right, that's where the "within the module as written" clause comes in.
David Gantenbein excellent point, one of the biggest gripes I hear about Gygax’s written adventures is that they’re hack and slash, dungeon crawlers. If you carefully read the layouts and descriptions, there is a pretty clear analog to tactical problems,which makes perfect sense given how the hobby grew out of tactical wargaming.
Let us not forget what Alfred Adler said "The ultimate goal of any game is not only to win but more importantly to get your opponent to play again."
"A GM that does not entertain their players is gonna soon find out that they do not have any players to play"
This is exactly what happened with a GM who was so forceful with how he wanted us to roleplay his campaign (you are now evil aligned for making a mistake that placed a good npc in danger) that some people left and he made their characters vampire thralls of the final boss (Strahd).
As a player he was not much better on campaigns GMed by others because he always wanted to roleplay the "self serving asshole-know-it-all" who never really is part of the party.
He was planning a new campaign but for reasons he had to leave for some months and after that everyone found the chance to not ever invite him again to our D&D house as a GM or a player.
My dice used to always try to beat me, punish me, or ruin my good time. But, ever since I attached a rubber chicken's foot to my dice bag, they've been powerless to do so. Yep, a rubber chicken's foot is the only surefire way to banish those pesky dice curses.
I'm clicking this video hoping to see a Seth Vs. Dweebles fight!
I'm sorry, but I failed you. Now that you mention it, that would have been a great opportunity for one.
@@SSkorkowsky Yeah! And the odds were even in your favor, Vegas has you winning by 60%, Though I'm not so sure, Those mellow guys fight dirty.
@@SSkorkowsky Don't worry Dweebles. I still love ya. I even gave ya a name and background! XD
@ Anacronian
Hunger games
Seth, I am DM from long ago. I found your channel a couple of months ago and it has rekindled my desire GM again. Thanks for all the great information.
I would really love to meet some of Seth's real Players
Wait... you mean... Seth doesn't "actually" play with three costumed versions of himself???
@@Lonegrunt Dweebles might mind, but the others would definitively be in for it =)
When I was living with roommates, I would sometimes bring home doughnuts for them. The Doughnut shop had an awful lemon doughnut that was from the outside indistinguishable from outer jelly doughnuts; I always made sure to have them include one in the box. I don't know why I was doing it, it was like Doughnut roulette. The roommates knew there would be one of those awful doughnuts in the lot and I enjoyed the tension of seeing them bite in a jelly doughnut, hoping they didn't pick the right one.
I think when you're GMing, it is your role to provide opposition to the players but you're not the opponent of the players. Most of the experience should be pleasant but, yes, once in a while, things can leave a bitter taste in the mouth of the player. The tension contributes to the excitement.
That's beautiful! Donut roulette.
I’m saving this idea...
No one ever suspects the dark wizards...its always the player or the GM which is just what the dark wizards want you all to think.
RVR121 shhhhhhhhhh that’s not true
Then it is settled. The GM and players must unite and destroy the infinity dice!
If a normal six sided dice only has a 1 in 6 chance of rolling ANY FACE....what happens to the dice if it falls in that 1 to 5?
🤯
@@Tony-dh7mz Better hope the other dice adds up to 7 so you win big.
Yes, by dice I mean die,
But the word “die” took something of the poetic license from it,
Most people just call dice, plurally or not
Thanks for the reminder that gaming is always a group effort. One of the negative consequences I've seen come out of a "player vs GM" scenario is that everyone else becomes excluded while the GM and the one adversary player spend the entire session butting heads.
There is a lot of human psychology that is foundational to this problem. I think that a lot of people are attracted to role-playing (and a lot of hobbies) because it gives them a sense of control. And that can be healthy or unhealthy control. I've encountered a lot of players and gamemasters with behaviors that you describe and what they all have in common is that they get upset when they feel like their sense of control is being challenged. Some people equate "challenge" with "stealing my control." This isn't unique to role-playing. We've all experienced a co-worker with self-destructive tendencies that doesn't seem to understand why what they are doing is hurting their relationships. Self reflection is hard for people. That said, the bigger question is: What do we do about it? Well, we're not counselors. But what GMs can do in the short term is give that player something they can be in control of that doesn't dominate the whole game. What works will be different for every person. It may not work at all. I find that players with control complexes are often satiated by something that they can call their own. Is it an adult pacifier? Yeah, basically. I'm not trying to be glib. If we want a game to move smoothly sometimes the only solution is to find what stops the crying. ;)
Seth, you should totally run a streaming game sometime. I would love to see you dm. I think it would be very entertaining. Your vids keep getting better. keep up the good work. I can't wait for another old dnd module review!
I would be down to play in the game.
I'd play or watch. Mr. Skorkowsky has inspired my DMing.
That would be awesome!
Seth, Words of wisdom to play by. I play your tip s videos for my players whenever there is a new member or you put out another.
The GM who taught me how to GM used to tell me, That GM's only tpk their players when they're not creative enough to finish a story lol
I mean sometimes ur party are just dumbasses too
Then you have a scenario where the players agreed that fucking with a bunch of banshees is a smart move
Yeah, I think this is specifically about GM’s who TPK on *purpose*. I think most of us have been either the victim or perpetrator of a TPK that didn’t have to happen, it was just a combat or series of bad decisions that spiraled beyond the point of recovery.
TPKing the players when they make an obviously stupid mistake is fine, as long as they should've been able to see it coming. Even then, I usually like to give them a chance at *merely* being humiliated or suffering a major setback, if that outcome makes any sense at all.@@wrongtime9097
Stay awesome as well. Also, I'm enjoying the look I get when people take the time to actually read the Scott Brown shirt I got. Again, thank you for putting up the version I needed. You are awesome Sir.
As a fellow Texas, I can confirm the BBQ requirements.
There is a game for paranoid play. You must have fun while playing it. To not have fun, and be happy is treason.
Also I just had a BBQ pulled pork sandwich. it was good.
Dirus Congrats for your lunch... or dinner. I do hope it was just the way you like it. Also I have reason to believe that you’re a fellow CoC player, am I correct in that assumption?
Sounds more like Paranoia.
Fun is mandatory!
It’s true, non fun is Treason,
But so is “Pork” (your moderately healthy soy food stuffs that is generously offered by the computer is enough for you....or should be)
Please report to the food vats citizen
@@InsightfulCaveman you should always trust friend computer
I also find it strange when players see their role as adversarial with the other players. I think this is a hangover from board or even video games where the purpose is to win rather than tell a compelling story and for everyone to enjoy themselves. Ultimately the GM is a player too & I think they should have fun too. Sometimes having the GM play a significant NPC , a henchman of the group for instance, can help give a sense of inclusion
I do like the constant mantra "we're all here to have a good time." Not something I'd thought about when I started GMing, but yeah, we're all here to hang out and have fun. Being reminded of that takes some of the pressure off.
Hey Seth, recently found your channel and really enjoying it.
I can relate to this in that a couple of newer player in my group have difficulty breaking away from the computer game rpg mentality of loot and stats being the most important and one in particular who still refers to the enemies in combat as "Aidan's guys" when discussing strategy. I think a lot of this is because there is a big overlap between tabletop wargamers and RPG'ers and it's easy to lapse into that mentality of "guy/girl across the table = opponent".
It is a fairly weird concept to be fair - a player at the table who is on the PC's side, but is also controlling the baddies and sum of all maleveolence against them to give them a fun challenging game - the only real way to get past it is for people to just play!
Anyway great videos thanks very much!
Little common faith would help... players should keep in mind that if the GM really wanted to kill you there isn't much you could do to stop it... and GMs need to realize that a player more than has the power to leave if you mistreat them... good GMs and players wanna have fun together
Can confirm. No matter what I tried to do to survive, if I played along with his vision perfectly, to playing it safe to even trying to fight the GM I would always get killed within three games while his buddy would always somehow manage to survive. I never understood the DM vs Player thing cause the DM has ultimate power.
@@bigblue344 exactly... also you should probably leave that game if you haven't already xD
@@bigblue344 well idk about ultimate power either... if you ask me the players have the ultimate power cuz GMs need them to play
@@thepurehealer1279 Players have the ultimate power, but only if they practice solidarity. ✊
@@Dorian_sapiens which will be every damn player if you are a bad GM xD
Amen! This one is a old but important topic which came back to me and my table at a regular basis. As you said this is not only an issue of inexperienced players rather then a mindset or even a funny mood the player/gm is in at a given moment. I just can underline your statement that you should not counter bad behavior with bad behavior. Talk to each other if you feel that there is an issue.
I don’t see it brought up that often, but from what I have seen of gary gygaxs group, it seems like they where player vs gm. this might explain the prevalence of the mine set, as Gary is the creator of dnd, and you can see that influence in his modules
My dice rolled badly in my last game session
It's all your fault, Seth!
Love your Philosophy topics Seth! As a fairly new DM, I like to think I have learned a little from checking out your videos. I enjoy your opinions on roleplaying in general, and always look forward to your new uploads :)
Could not agree more than its a no-win situation. I am happy that I was shown early on (as a player) that it should never be a one sided "I WIN" mentality but that all sides of the table enjoy the sessions and the fun. My current group has had an excellent time and keep asking/looking forward to our next round as we pen the adventures to (TOGETHER)....
I find it admirable that you are not only producing new great videos, but also are improving the old ones. Please keep up the good work, I have learned a lot from you about GMing!
Something I'd like you to consider: A (short?) video from the PoV of one (each?) of your characters around the table, with bits from the others and yourself on the other side of the screen. Your characters are fantastic. It would depend on the subject matter at hand I suppose.
Always enjoyable, thanks Seth!
You know who I think the worst types of players are? The divas. These are people who want the entire game to be about them, and if it's not, they throw a hissy fit and often rage quit. There are several other players, each one worked hard in creating their characters and having them fit into this world.
I had this happen literally the first game I DMed, and I ended up ending the party only a few sessions in.
Ego tripping Mary Sue’s
It’s a personality defect, you need better players,
Yes, they are the worst, and tend to do the passive aggressive thing and try to derail the game,
Ugly mudderfunkers
Great video as always Seth. Lots to unpack.
I think so much of this dynamic comes down to trust. Players and GMs alike have to learn to trust each other not to abuse or take advantage of whatever tools they have at their disposal. Humans as a rule do not trust new things very easily, and self preservation can easily rise to the top of the priority list.
I run a lot of games for kids, and I always explain to them that the point of the game is to overcome challenges. While I personally am always rooting for the players to win, my job is to provide those challenges. This means I have to control the NPCs and monsters as genuinely and honestly as I can. If an NPC agrees with what the players are trying to do, then I will have them be helpful. If they are opposed, then I will have to do whatever the NPC is capable of doing to stop the PCs. It is similar to players learning to separate ingame and player knowledge.
I have found that asking and answering a simple "why?" question goes a long way, especially with new groups. If a player does something that seems selfish or needlessly confrontational, I will ask them why they are making that choice. Players are always welcome to ask me why an NPC did this or that, and I always tell them as much as I can based on what the players have already seen. It helps them see the logic and reason which builds up trust that I am NOT actively trying to screw them over. That in turn makes them way less likely to try to look out only for themselves.
Gygax himself was a GM vs. player type (see Tomb of Horrors), as the hobby grew from its roots in war-gaming. Thankfully, that mindset has become increasingly more rare as tabletop RPGs have become more popular. I totally agree that the *dice* are our true enemy, and all throughout every land must band together to defeat them!
Your vids are my "go to" advice for any players or GMs asking for advice. Thanks for them.
"Don't be paranoid.... unless you are playing Paranoia"
Another great vid, mate. Full of fundamental truths about the RPG experience and the toxicity of some approaches to the mission of delivering shared fun for the greatest number, rather than for an individual (whether DM or glory-hounding player) vs that of the group. Shared fun at-table = friendship in the making, even allowing for (sometimes amusing, but oft-frustrating) Murphy runs of crappy dice luck. Keep 'em coming ...
Thank you so much Seth for these videos, I really mean that.
I am embarrassed to say that when I started as a DM this was my mentality. Fortunately, after a particularly bad game session, I had a couple of the players help me identify this behavior. With the support of my game group and more experience, I was able to correct the issue. All the members of the group have since moved across the country and I've been running games with different groups since. Fixing that behavior led to a lot of great memories... Paladin vs Blackguard duel in the Underdark, the Orc Barbarian that washed his head just to wear the new poofy purple hat his Hobgoblin "friend" gave him, the minotaur and pixie romance, Bill the skeleton comedic familiar of the Wizard... great times :D
All of this can also apply to video game design.
25 years with the same core rpg group, last 20 with me as GM, I think I'm doing OK, but always happy to learn new things and approaches. Excellent video tutorial / advice.
The thing is, everything is dependent on the group. I've seen groups that want to be led, and groups that want to do their own thing. My current group has a murder-hobo in it, but we just incorporated him into the game by having him play a character who keeps getting the Party into trouble, and the other two character roleplay their in-universe annoyance. And of course in a game like Paranoia and, to a lesser extent DCC (where the entire point of the first session is to whittle down the number of PCs), you are going to get some DM vs Player conflict, because that is literally what every person playing signed up for.
Thanks for your RPG philosophy videos! I really aprecciate it
Hi, Seth. Personally, I think that this kind of mentality comes from the days of the very first RPG gamers. Many of (if not most of) those old timers thought that crafting the most lethal and unforgiving dungeon was the mark of any DM worth his salt, and that only the best players could thwart the homicidal intentions of a bloodthirsty DM. Heck, I've read quite a few accounts of people that say that Gary Gygax himself ran his games according to this mentality
Whether people have interpreted Gygax correctly or not, I fear that this is the darkside of his legacy. I know many a gamer who wants to "be like Gygax" and they interpret "be like Gygax" as meaning "I can be ruthless and caustic, but since I am being 'challenging' I get a free pass." They treat Tomb of Horrors as if that is how all games should be run. Gary Gygax was a human man, with many human faults, just like the rest of us. And I'm going to make the crazy assertion that there are thousands of GMs better than him because we've LEARNED how to improve GMing over the years. Worship of Gygax holds people back in their GMing capabilities, in my opinion.
I had many situations where I pointed out we forgot to apply some rule or situational modifier and my fellow players are like 'Why do you help the GM?' as if not cheating is letting the team down or smthg
No person grows without going through challenges or hardships. That is my main focus as a Player: “how does my character react to this challenge and how does that change them after going through it?”
I'll just say this to the title. Yet to watch the full vid. I'll likely edit this comment... or forget to... after watching.
One of the people I know that runs some games occasionally... He's conditioned himself and the players he's with that "impossible odds" are a good challenge. I'll say this... sometimes, in something like DnD (or CoC), you got to let a player have time to feel empowered. Feel like their their increased skills or levels matter. This guy, from what I've heard... just ramps it up with levels and that's about it. I mean... Let my Rogue feel like gaining his archetype matters. :-/ Or my Ranger's added dice from his spell buffs. Don't try to overcompensate with the overpowered magical items and go the opposite way.
Trust me, I've been a Monty Haul DM... It's not fun for everybody when the solution ends up being "steamroll through everything" because I as DM/Keeper have overcompensated or allowed too much of a good thing.
LuckyOwl Imo players actually like both: they like to survive by the proverbial hair‘s breadth, but also to just steamroll through enemies. The trick is that they don’t like to be stuck in just one of those options. The hard parts lose their edge if just everything is super though, while the easy parts get boring, when they are all that is.
You sir....... are on the money with this one !!! enjoyment and group effort... coming together for a good time !!! (but beware the dice sometimes!!!)
While I’ve never intoned “Sha-na-na, let’s all hold hands,” i will be doing so in future
I'd love to see an episode about optimization arms races.. sometimes a player or a GM enjoys optimizing builds and this results in imbalances that run parallel to Player vs GM, without necessarily being due to animosity or mindset. One tries to build stronger builds, the other increases the difficult of encounters and what sometimes results is a treadmill that can devolve to player and DM. This sort of dovetails with issues about pacing and having some squash encounters and not a predictable curve of increasing difficulty. In storytelling it's often necessary to demonstrate how much more powerful players have become throughout their journey through encounters. Some DM's may neglect this in favor of CR adjustment often to the detriment of the game.
Optimization by definition means that you make something better at a specific something, "combat" is not specific, you can make the best tank or the best dps, the best ranged attacker, whatever, but you can't be all of them at the same time, which means that sure, some encounters will be easy if it plays by their strength, but sometimes that will not happen and the best tank will be caught without their armor on, or maybe the archer will be engaged in melee and its not that the GM will try to screw them over, simply goblins fight at range and hidden, kobolds out traps in their traps and so on.
Some encounters will naturally counter any optimized build, so a good DM wont fall in the pitfalls of screwing up directly the munchkin or just add a bunch of high CRs in an attempt to challenge the players, a good DM will simply find encounters that are more than a horde of brutes trying to whack you with hammers.
“arms races” isn’t a thing silly, it’s called a “foot race” and it’s done with legs,
Stop being Racist
Ross Jackson - In my world if a new character tries to steal the crown of the king then the guards are as tough as they would be as if he would be a seasoned character. The idea of balancing is entertaining, but a bit meaningless.
The few times I've been able to get some D&D in, our GM really worked with us...maybe to our detriment. I've got some friends with quite the opposite experience. Temperamental GM and a murder hobo in the party. As you said, it becomes no fun very quickly. There's definitely a difficult balance between the two.
"Guys, I'm not trying to kill you, these 12 goblins are."
It doesn't always convince them.
I've always just been so happy to find someone else to play with that I would do just about anything to keep it going. I grew up and live in an area where very few people play RPGs. And now most of my friends who play have moved away, so unless I play with my kids, I don't get to play at all.
Such a great point well made as a G.M/Keeper I don't want the Players to lose their characters but neither do I want the adventure to be too easy. For me, a great game is one that challenges the Players and rewards cool plays and great ideas but has the threat of some potentially deadly repercussions for doing something foolish for example charging a Shoggoth with a pen is never going to end well.
Had an adversarial DM once. It took a special group of players and circumstances to see it through to the end. As it turned out the DM didn't have to destroy us, he'd built a story that slowly drove an ethical wedge between the players who continued to work together because the DM's villains were far too powerful to defeat alone. The moment the final villain fell, the players tore each other apart. The campaign is now infamous in our friend group and the players swore never to play in that world again. It was that good.
damn I really want to play a game with you, regardless of role (I would GM or play since I do both), you really seem like an amazing person to play at a tabletop with and I love every single one of these videos, extremely well thought-out, and all great ideas and ideologies about being a good person in general, because this stuff supercedes tabletop gaming and transfers to other areas of life.
Great video, as always! I was, however, stunned by the revelation that you’re Texan! I would’ve sworn you were Canadian....I guess I botched that roll!
Canadian hey?
Nice commentary. That Sha-Na-Na reference came out of left field lol.
I think he meant Kumbaya, actually.
I probably did. Sha-na-na always makes me think of flower-power and hippies (also of The Dead Milkmen, but that's another story)
I’m not holding hands, GAY much.....unless it’s a bellydancers hand...then I’ll hold her hand..
@@SSkorkowsky I feel I really need to hear that milkman story.
Ditto Max
Gary Gygax himself defended this philosophy... being done within RULES, IE, okaying those orcs to the most intelligent and cunning as they would logically be as their intelligent, wisdom, and alignment would have them be with the full intention of them killing any who sets foot in their raiders camp. Not 'a whale is randomly teleported above your heads by a drunk wizard a hundred miles away, roll to see how loud you scream as you're crushed.'
That's not really GM vs Player though, that's NPC vs PC - which is perfectly fine!
This, GMs should play encounters according to lore and stats, not trying to f up the players personally, goblins tend to attack in groups and by surprise, so they will fight like that, animals tend to rush whatever is closest, or surround the enemy, so they will do that and try their very best to win, when a GM screws up is when he adds way too many monsters than what would make sense and deviates the monsters strategy because that would kill the PCs better.
@@mornemauvais5873 Yeah, you can over think it, but you got to at least put some effort into making your setting make sense to help w/ suspension of disbelief. Such as, "What does the humongous local dragon eat when he wakes up from his long naps? He's pretty big! Is that why (other than possibly being neutral or evil) he or she is munching on the local sheep? And if he's sapient, why doesn't he just be civil and buy them with his horde? Is he a jerk? Too lazy to bother digging around it? Too covetous or greedy? Or does he just look down on other sapient creatures and just think the "ingrates" should appreciate that he doesn't eat them instead...for now?
@@NodDisciple1 I dont really see your point, as in I dont see how what you say is mutually exclusive from what I said, if you read about dragons you will find that each dragon has it's own reasons for whatever it is doing, if it would be doing that something, for example a bronze dragon would be unlikely to be eating the farmer's sheep, but likely to be fighting in a war and so on.
Like I said, properly informing yourself as a GM about each and every monster allows you to run encounters that make sense, are different from each other and something I did not mention which might or might not be what you are telling me; write a compelling story
@@mornemauvais5873 I'm saying don't throw random monsters into a game just to one-up the party w/o at least having a halfway decent reason/explanation for it being there to better ensure suspension of disbelief.
Really fantastic video as usual. Haha, yeah I don't remember Sha-Na-Na holding hands much, especially not Bowzer.
In the bad old days there was definitely a Thing of DMs priding themselves over a TPK. I agree with you that this was stupid and self defeating for all the reasons you mentioned.
Another thing that was a bit too common - mostly if you were a girl player - was rape of your character. No, not kidding.
When playing with a new DM, I'd sometimes keep a page of precautions folded on top of the table in case of just this.
And yes, I actually met a GM who not only lost me my best underaged player by staging a whole whip and chains gay sex party, but then did create a TPK.
It's sad, but in 40 years of gaming, I've met players and DMs like that.
Waaaaaa!
Dude you have been playing with some messed up GM’s
That’s blatantly abusive, not a gm issue, a “person” issue,
Learn to spot the crazy, avoid
Abusive gm’s have never been a trend, but an anomaly
@@Tony-dh7mz Oh yeah, it's definitely a person thing, not a GM thing. But it IS/WAS a thing.
Probably a lot less, now that girl gamers aren't a rarity anymore. I know of plenty of early women gamers who've had similar experiences, and many worse than mine.
The crazies are easier to spot now that I'm in my 50's and much more street smart. Back as a teen and early 20 something, not so much.
And even when the guys weren't total creeps, they still often took sincere girls just looking for a game, as a chick who MUST be hitting on them. Cause everyone knows girl gamers and unicorns don't exist, right? 😋
What I learned to do, as I find it difficult to not want to compete against my players, is simply to build the world and populate it. Then I just run the world as it was designed, and let the dice fall where they may. It's not a perfect solution, but I know it helped me.
I approach designing an encounter or campaign a lot like designing a SIMS town or minecraft level. I build all the houses, furnish them, sprinkle in some obstacles, add NPCs and creatures, design the character personalities and motives for NPCs, start it running, then introduce the players and watch them wreck it (or themselves) in way I never expected.
I rarely ever look at it like GM vs Player. Excepting BBEG end fights it's almost always the players vs the environment where I'm trying to describe the effects and consequences of the players' actions on the environment. I'm strict with the die rolls and don't fudge so if I'm rolling hot or the players are rolling cold that night, they'll need to adjust the choices they make to compensate for it or take their chances.
Thank you for 05:36 I'm working on a custom periphery planet for my part for my Battletech Campaign. And yes, I want to make the trip across the Inner Sphere to get to it dangerous, but I don't want to outright kill them. Making a new world whole cloth is hard work. And I want to award them w/ actual land if they survive the mess that is the Battletech Universe and can crawl up the political ladder.
You know what, I love your videos. So lively compared to many other D&D videos. Even though it's "scripted," it doesn't feel that way.
We had a tpk recently. And none of us were overjoyed about it. A string of bad dice rolls hit us. And we lost the big battle. My character got eaten. It was one of the shorter side adventures based around the main campaign we've been running. And at the worst, I think it will have interesting effects in our game world. It was sad to lose a character I liked. But the storyline left behind could get interesting.
I feel ya
My group got TPKed on a sidequest not too long ago (around the time this comment was posted, still haven't completely recovered)
The friend who was the DM was just as broken as us, hell maybe even more as he won't stop talking about how proud he was from what he has planned for us (he starts a new game soon, and we promised to not die stupidly this time)
I requested this two weeks ago on the old one.
I'm not saying it was only because of me that this video is up, or even that Seth saw my comment at all.
But I am saying that your goddess accepts tribute in the form of dice and old dungeons from early D&D editions.
I have had 1 TPK in my DMing days. I was DM'ing Hoard of the Dragon queen and no one was really feeling the quest. they also went through the dungeon in just such a way that they were easily taken out. Its also important to note that my group does 15 week sessions usually, so we weren't going to continue the quest for much longer anyway.
Wonderful video!
And you are right!! A lot of the people with this mindset talk such big talk online... but never seem to be a part of an ongoing gaming group!
They are also the type of people who will fight anyone who says that the GameMaster is the most important person at the table. LOL
Also
I see 5 dislikes for this video! Is it the same five angry people!?
I've played with a gm who has this philosophy. And sadly the 2D20 system sort of enables this mindset through in game mechanics like the GMs pool of threat that they can use to tactically screw over PCs in durring do or die moments or to stop them from doing cool things just to "win"
At one point during a boss fight in DnD, our Wizard cast Detect thoughts to track what the enemies gameplan was. We found out there plan (can't remember what it was) and adjusted accordingly. Our game master instead of rewarding our wizard for being creative and thinking outside the box, made the enemies change the plan to be even *worse* for us
Cool vid as always. And it is mostly true. Most people running games and playing just want to have fun. Heck I've had very helpful and nice GMs. And the few times I've GMed I've gone out my way to make it fun. But, I was never a great GM. till once in a while I have met the Oy GMs. That just tried to show everyone how awesome they were. But, again it's rare. Most GMs are cool and trying to make a fun game. Cool vid can't wait to see the next one.
I've definitely been in this mindset in the first game I ran as a GM. I ran a game with six players, half of which were first time players, most of which were murder hobo's, and one of which was the great GM that ran the session I played in. I ended up getting upset that I made an elaborate story for nothing and threw a group of vastly overleveled story NPC's against them with a thinly veiled justification. My GM from the other game just flat out refused to keep playing, that's when I realised I was being a massive jerk. The campaign ended then and there.
Now I have a different group who is more in line with my tastes of epic storytelling and detailed worldbuilding, and we have much more fun playing with each other rather than against each other.
There were a few occasions I was playing against the gamemaster. Not a normal occurrence but each time it was a result of being stuck in a linear narrative with no ability to move it or freewill. In a sense I did not need to be there the story was set and I was moving twirls the inevitable conclusion. When placed in a situation like that I try to somehow make it my story despite the machinations of the gamemaster Those are one shots for me I find better things to do after that.
I had, a long time ago, some players who led the game down the players vs DM rabbit hole. At the point of highest frustration I stood up, said I had to use the bathroom, and went downstairs, and drove for an hour or so and used the bathroom in a McDonalds. By the time I got back, the players were gone. The non-trouble players applied some peer pressure to the trouble ones and the social environment at the table started improving.
These days, if something is headed in that direction, I just stop running the game, stare for a bit, then talk it out. We all grow, and I am fortunate to have grown more mature with my players.
I am in a bind currently as DM in game I designed. it's a murder mystery/supernatural action adventure thing skin to hunter the vigil, world of darkness etc. the game is going well for the most part. catch is it's played over a chat software but it works out. I prefer sitting around the table with the rule book but it was a conscious choice since half of the players are sitting across the globe so for what it is, its good. now here is the problem. we have 3 beginners characters who all already doing really well doing what their characters would do, fixing puzzles and so on and are happy going along with the narrative. they are characters who are pretty basic humans with no supernatural abilities. however one other player who shouldn't isn't new to RPGs is playing a magic user, we discussed it and it was fine the way it was discussed because using magic has severe downsides, it basically slowly kills the character, makes him more addictive to it and drains psychic energy etc. so I advised to use the powers with extreme caution, the player agreed to that and we all that social contract was honored... however this guy whose character has other non useful skills ALWAYS uses magic. he fails dice rolls constantly as well and thus ends up in really bad situations, I can see his frustration but I have extensively discussed the issues with him in private. he Is also trying to be a notorious spotlight hog which I won't allow and again have talked about. i throw his character a lot of boned to resolve situations in the game differently and encourage him that when the right time comes he can do his thing. he agrees but then immediately retorts back to doing the same stupid stuff as always. now he Is in a situation where there is a high risk his character will die because of his extremely dumb decision making. on top of that I have other players complaining about him, in game as well as outside. so what is the best way to go about it?
I like that BBQ comparison. It's quite apt. The game is not players vs GM, it's player character vs world. And while that seems similar, it's quite different. The evil wizard wants to kill the player characters, but I, the GM, want the players to have fun. That's my win condition.
*It's okay .*
*I'm from Wisconsin .*
*When ever food comes up .*
*I use Beer , cheese & brats by default .*
I love your channel. How about a video reviewing some of the various campaign settings. Or a review of some of the role-aides products from Mayfair Games.
I've never felt this way as a player or as a DM. Especially when I'm the DM. My goal is to make sure everyone has fun and the good thing is that my players tend too. I let them try crazy shit and see how it works out and if they all die, they laugh it off. If they succeed, we all have a great story. I mean, my players snuck into the Cult of the Dragon's castle HQ by doing a crawfish boil!
8:30 Communication is key. If you have a problem player(s) and/or gamemaster, it can be resolved in 1 of 3 ways:
1) Everyone just tollerates it, untill they can't anymore, and leave.(or the campain concludes.)
2) The problem person(s), leave the game. (If this happens to be the GM, the game probly desolves.)
3) Communication happens between the problem person(s) and the rest of the group, and The problem person modifys their behaviour.
Option 3 sounds like the healthyest solution.
Years ago I was gaming with a friend of mine, we are still friends but it did put a strain on our friendship. He was the gm and after making our characters he pulled me aside and said" hey nothing against you. But I like to single out a character to attempt to kill." I stupidly said ok so we played our first session. He tried to kill me but I kept coming up with other ways with in the rules to go around his tricks. After that we got a new group to play with. And he asked me to make a new character so I did. And after he couldn't kill him he changed campaigns made me create another character. And it kept going like that till I quit playing after having around five or six level five characters
On "risk vs. reward" (5:56), it's interesting to ponder less obvious risks than PC death. The Leverage RPG doesn't even have a concept like "Hit Points", presuming that if a combat breaks out, that's already a significant in-genre failure on the part of the PCs. Similarly, the Star Trek Adventures RPG from Modiphius (with similar mechanics to the Conan RPG Seth has talked about) has a combat system, but after running the game for more than a year, I've barely learned those rules. If a protracted fight breaks out in Star Trek and you didn't go into it with a plan like "Let's do a Dominion War campaign", something's going oddly. I've been deeply engaged and on the edge of my seat in games where PC death wasn't really a likely possibility. It's just one way to keep players' attention, not the only way.
I think that the RPG game scenario should be like a freindly game of tennis. The player should push the GM and the GM should push the player. There should be a competition, but a freindly competition. You should push your freinds and improve them.... BUT sometimes if your freind makes a mistake or is stupid you should exploit that weakness so they can get stronger!
Well done and well put.
OMG. This. The second GM my wife ever played with (my 4th or 5th) was the epitome of the antagonistic GMs. There were three players in that game (3rd ed D&D), a druid (my wife), a ranger (me), and a monk (my friend Daniel). He gave us no treasure, and threw monsters at us 2 and 3 levels above our characters. Ever game he would proclaim that he was going to surely kill one of us that game, but we all managed to make it to level 3 (a huge part of that was that the lack of gear did not nerf the monk or the druid as much as it did me, and my wife realized how awesome Produce Flame is, lol). Come the final session we played with him (as GM) and he starts off saying that "well, you guys have come a long way, but tonight its going to be different" and he proceeds to have us battle a friggin Bodak (a CR 8 creature, for those who don't know). Yea, against a party of 3 (CR is calculated off an assumed party of 4) who had the gear of a level 1 character (in a system in which gear was practically more important than levels, lets be honest) and it was a character nearly 3 times their level. The damn thing has DR, for pete's sake. So we all died. And when he asked when we were going to be free for the next session, we all just told him that we'd let him know.... we only played with him once more after that, my wife's first time GMing, and she accidently placed a creature we were to low of a level to beat (it was some type of black dragon, but we were like level 8 or so) and he literally made one attack against it, it failed, and he ran into a burning building and committed suicide... Daniel and I almost managed to kill it before it killed us by working together and being creative (I was a small creature ninja, and I climbed on it back and was choking it with the chain of my kusarigama while he was filling it with arrows from a distance.... then I failed my Climb check to hang on and it was all over, TPK lol). We never invited him back after that.
If I'm not DM-ing the campaign I'm about to play, I've learned to ask the DM, "Are you a god or a guide?" I get the god answer and I move along. The "god" DM creates the player vs. DM mentallity. Everything you just said rings soo much truth. I wish I could play in your campaigns. My last group had the "god" type, and I stopped going to the games.
You ask me that, you get 'god'
But mostly 'cause the great god DM is a long running gag in my group
A guy I know ran a DnD campaign that was basically a no holds barred cage of death fight between him and the players. A player bought some thick and heavy armour, the GM brought out a pack of rust monsters ("Aren't those solitary!" GM: "Not these ones!"). The players stopped wearing armour, the GM brought poison dart traps. The players picked gear and skills that made them more or less immune to poison. Here, play with this groups of beholders ("Aren't those solitary!" GM: "Not these ones!") and their pet basilisks. The guy pretty much poisoned player-GM relations and on the few occasions that I've had players from that group at my table, I've had to extensively explain that I'm not that guy.
Great perspective! 👍🏻
I am also a Texan and the state law checks out.
All good advice. I lost a group, a really fun group by being a bit insecure. We rotated DMing. One guy kept amazingly populating his games with special magic items tailor-made for his character, and claim they were randomly rolled. He'd also managed to acquire Psionics though no one saw the roll. His childishness (this guy was in his 30s) and pathetic desire to be ultra-powerful without earning it, in a game where such an attitude is self-defeating really turned me off. I reacted by targetting him and his beloved toys when I took over as DM. One other player understood my purpose. The other 3 got sheepish. It was like I took a balloon away from a 4-year old. I handled it badly, and my approach had been poorly devised. I regret what I did, and miss those players. It killed our group. At the same time, I also realize that I had become bored with the predictable outcomes, the inevitable "Oh, here we go again" that would fall involuntarily from my lips-and my supporter's. I wanted a game less focused on magic and more on role-playing. I could have fixed it maybe by upping my game as a DM, and being a "bigger" person. But, I failed. Lesson learned.
Back in the bad old days I played with a few groups that thought it was Players VS DM. Then I started playing games that weren't from TSR.
Seth, I know you no longer play D&D, but have you checked out the new Ghosts of Saltmarsh? It's pretty sweet, with a pretty well-done 5e conversion of the classic Saltmarsh trilogy.
I have to agree with everything and add in 1 thing you over looked. Time. If combat with a group of mobs takes 4 hours to go through and you only play 4 hours a week. The GM should tone things down alot and that situation should be the "final" battle not the first. I had one of those a few weeks back and I was miserable. They week before that we did nothing for 4 hours. I would like a sense of completion in each session.
I love that Seth puts forth the idea that an enjoyable game is a shared responsibility. I've seen too many players treat the DM/GM like a dancing clown or variety show host tasked with catering to their individual entertainment without regard for anyone else at the table. It's why I cringe at the "Storyteller" moniker. Everyone should be working together to help drive the story, not being a passive observer.
The GM is a player as well. They deserve to have just as much fun as you do.
The key to remember is that it is a three-way contract. The DM must listen to the players, the players must listen to the DM, and players must listen to other players. As soon as one fails to do so, the whole contract starts to fall apart.
OK, you've convinced me of who/what the true enemy is. Next session, the players and I are going to set an ambush and gang up on those bloody dice! 'bout time those smug clicky shiny bastards got what was coming to them.
Sandy Petersen has a story about one evening he, Greg Stafford, and some other guys were playing. One player had a string of abysmal rolls. And after the umpteenth failure, he got up from the table, walked out to a wood pile, and smashed the die with a maul. Stafford calmly replied, "Next time you should make the other dice watch."
@@SSkorkowsky How else are they going to learn?
I try to keep my players thinking there is something awfull ahead or a trap in every corner so when they explore they do so carefully and end up unveloping mysteries and little details they obsses over and typically end up loving
11:57 am I the only one who immediately thought of the prisoners dilemma here? Because that’s basically what he’s describing.