"We're going to move the princess" wouldn't seem strange to anyone who's played Mario...

I will say that I like the added text boxes. Helps to follow the primary points you are making and I can kinda jot those down as notes to myself for later use.

I was a fan of the old text boxes and the new one seems even better. I don't want you to have to add any editing hours onto the workload that normally goes into these videos but I would say that text boxes like that have been particularly helpful when I want to come back to one of your videos for specific advice on a current situation. Visually, they also help me follow and understand your points as you are saying them, so I fully support it!

Text Graphics/Bullet Points were very helpful! The length of the video was ideal for such an important topic (flew by). Having "Yes, but/No, and" ready to respond to unexpected player actions is a very powerful improvisational tool. I'm also picturing it as interesting responses to skill challenges. "No, the guard rejects the bribe, and alerts his partner". "Yes, you recognize the plant as a potent hallucinogen, and that it grows on the east side of damp hills" (Why would "Yes, and" not be possible to move the story along for a successful roll or action?) I was thinking a combination approach would be great when you said exactly the same; I look forward to using both in my campaign.

@rashkavar

6 жыл бұрын

"Yes, And..." is what a lot of DMs use for the ultimate success rolls - natural 20s in DnD, for example.

@rashkavar

6 жыл бұрын

He's old enough and experienced enough that he's developed a way of doing things that works for him. Sometimes that's a good thing - you can learn a lot from people with lots of experience - and sometimes that's a problem - being so experienced almost guarantees a degree of entrenchment in specific strategies, which makes one rather less than open to alternatives.

@HLR4th

6 жыл бұрын

The video's style are by intention like friend's talking. Speaking for myself, I would rather Guy focus on communicating his own inner thoughts, and let the grammatical inconsistencies flow; for Yoda find, it worked for did!

I'm very glad that we agree on this. Long time watcher, and my players make it very difficult to do a standard villain-focus plot, as they prefer to get hands on and steer the plot (which in and of itself, I enjoy). I had actually be running games with this method for a bit, and just hearing you reaffirm it puts a smile on my face. I do like the editing as well, it's like a stable presentation that flows as much as your topics and helps me focus more on the key points. Keep being awesome!

Yes But and No And is the simplest yet most helpful advice I've ever heard. I've seen it before but I never realized how good it is until it was talked about here.

Another great video, Guy!!! AND for the record, since you did ask, the graphics/text boxes are a good idea... It's going to be a delicate balance between "enough to be really helpful" benefit, and "so much it's distracting" deficit, BUT I think you'll be able to get that fairly consistently with a bit of practice... In my own style... I've occasionally been termed a "flip flopper" about the dubiously PC-driven method you describe here, and the somewhat more Villainously Driven plot-structures that come across as "a bit railroady" to some Players, BUT as you pointed out, it's that blend that makes truly epic campaigns more interesting, and it does seem (to most) to genuinely breathe more life to the world that some scenarios get just a little predictable... even occasionally tropish. Finally, I like to use those moments, or even repetitive "tropey" situationals to "establish theme" entirely for the principle of "breaking it" as part of the PC's "pay off" which is often a punch line, or an epic turn of events around a climax of struggles. It's not always simple or easy, but when it works out, it can really pay off. ;o)

The text boxes look great, and really enhance already very helpful videos. Great work!

Oh man, the new editing effect with the changeable words is really good. Keep doing it!

I really liked the backdrop text. Except for '121 is dead' subheadings - "Yes But" (both capitalized) and "No and" (first only). It's not a big thing, and everything else was great, but it distracted me disproportionately and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I for one gladly greet the return of the bullet points! They aid by revealing the structure of your discussion, which makes it far easier for viewers to follow. Essentially, it's less of a ramble and more of a lecture, statement and/or proposition with them! I often find that, for videos without bullet points, I usually have to make my own notes, essentially replicating them myself. And then they end up in a corner somewhere, helplessly camouflaged the next time I want to go through the video.

I do quite like the textboxes, they make memorising for me quite much easier. About good-guy plot: At the moment I run a mixed scenario, my players have full agency over their characters and what they want to do, they have no quest-giver, no big antagonist and really no constraints in the outlines of the setting. On the other hand I have a plot running, in which an NPC wants to take control over the city the campaign is set in, a kind of villain-plot in which the players may decide to side with the NPC to gain control over the city together. It was a hell of a lot to set up, 44 factions and over 150 prpared NPCs but once all this is done, such a campaign may run for ever. Additionaly, I and my players do really enjoy this kind of campaign because it gives everyone just so much more freedom and nearly infinite options to choose from.

Thank you for this! And the text definitely helps.

This is quite helpful. It deals with the game I'm GMing now. And PS, I missed the graphics for the bullet points. Glad to see them again.

Guy, your videos are gold. Congrats and keep up the good work.

I like the text boxes they are really helpful I often write them down and add a little extra stuff in my DM notes.

I like the text. I agree it slow down editing progress (my own videos take forever now) but I think that they definitely assist with the pacing.

When you brought up the concept of weirdly all-knowing villains I thought "Man, Mass Effect would have been bizarre if the Reavers were just constantly homing in on Shepard." Off topic I know, it just tickled me. Good vid. The video game Vermintide gave me this great idea for a setting for a Warhammer Fantasy RP (2nd edition) game. Basically there's a skaven problem that's pretty bad, and you can ignore it all you like, but if you do it'll keep getting worse. Ignore the problem and you'll just be dealing with a bigger one later. That's the motivation. The "If you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself." It's partially open world, but my plan is that the issues can't be ignored forever, and they'll get sucked into sewers, intrigue, betrayal, and rats to their necks.

The motivation point is why I like Burning Wheel so much: its Belief system combines the Personal motivation for characters AND Reward motivation for players! The way it works is rather simple: all characters must have from 1-4 one-sentence descriptions of a conviction that the character is UNCOMPROMISING on; These are the driving core principles of the character that they should almost never be willing to back down on until they're beaten into submission (and even then, with much protest and grumbling). When a character's belief is brought up in the game *in such a way as to be detrimental to the character or the party*, the player is offered a choice: resist their belief for the sake of the party/character's well-being, or follow the belief and get in trouble...And be given a thing that acts both like experience AND luck points from D&D. Did I mention this is one of the only ways to get XP in the game? ;-)

@larsdahl5528

6 жыл бұрын

There are a problem with such. Example: In a Pathfinder campaign I generated a character from Qadira, and I decided to have the hatred for orcs (Which many in Qadira have). A problem did arise when one og the other players did decide to make an orc character. In our case, or GM did not go for such, so I decided to modify my character. --- But, if a GM insist on such, then welcome to players who do not want to be in a group together. And such campaign is likely to end prematurely. What are there to do? Everytime the orc show up the orc hater flees. (Ok, the orc hater do thus quickly collect XP. - But I would prefer to not get those XP, if that is what it takes for the game to become better!) So what will you do as GM? Continue to keep pushing it? - Thus it will become railroading, and that marks you as a bad GM and the campaign ends (Who want to vaste their life at bad GM-ing?) How far will you push it? To the point where one of them kills the other? And even then, can you resist ressurecting the dead? Or do you wish to run two seperate things? One with the orc hater, and one with the orc? (Which is the sane thing to do, but are you, as GM, willing to accept it?)

@rashkavar

6 жыл бұрын

Interesting concept, though it does steer you into using adamant, uncompromising characters. The character I'm playing in my current D&D campaign is basically built on compromise. He's something of a naive noble brat whose main reason for being adventuring is because his father figured out he'd been skipping most of the tutoring intended to groom him as a suitable heir, and sent him off adventuring to prove his worth or die trying. When another character killed some bandits he'd put to sleep, he was worried, but instead of confronting her, he went to a different party member whose known her longer and was convinced that there really wasn't an option of taking them into custody and handing them over to the authorities (which is entirely true; the barge we were on was crammed with rescued slaves - there wasn't room for prisoners as well). The closest thing he has to a core conviction is the concept of noblesse oblige - that nobles have an obligation to look out for their charges - but he's spent his whole life avoiding standing firm on even that issue, because his father has the title and the power, and he figured he could just wait things out until his father died, at which point solving everything is simple because he's got the title and therefore power and respect, right? (He's kinda built off a caricature of the people who live a life of privilege but fail to accept responsibility for their actions. He's fun to play, but god would he be annoying in real life.)

@darkmage07070777

6 жыл бұрын

Lars Dahl First of all, if I were GMing such a game and consider the dynamic presented to be problematic - because the players can't RP well without taking it personally, for example - I would sit with both players before the game to make sure they would have some built in reason to be adventuring together to help mitigate that kind of problem. Perhaps they have some common goal that they consider more important than even their deep hatred of each other ("devil I know..."). If they can't work it out, then I would ask them both to modify their character ideas to something else (as you did); in the end, we're all there to have fun, so if they're going to diminish the fun of everyone else with their character, then they need to change it up. If I do nothing about the problem beforehand, then I either wanted this level of chaos and inter-party conflict in my game (some groups love it!) or I didn't look at the characters well enough before the game started and would consider myself a bad GM. Second, you are using Pathfinder as an example. While both it and Burning Wheel are superficially similar in that they're Tolkein fantasy settings, their actual mechanics are very different, with different reward and game mechanics built in. Pathfinder 1.0 just doesn't have a backstory-as-reward mechanic in mind (haven't tried 2.0, so don't know), so I wouldn't be too surprised that there would be problems without homebrew rules. By contrast, Burning Wheel had a number of mechanics in place to balance this out. This isn't the place to go over them all, but one example I have that may be relevant is a follow-up rule to what I described: if a player challenges it fulfills a belief (e.g. a character that hates Orcs comes to realize that not all Orcs are bad), they get XP and can replace that belief with a new one that better reflects their character. The kind of monolithic thinking you're describing would be perfect for that kind of "character arc" reward, so I would likely encourage it. And if I were to try to do the same thing in Pathfinder, I'd likely just import the rules from Burning Wheel directly and modify them to fit. It would be clunky, sure, but that's what happens when you hack a square peg to fit into a round hole. Finally, though, we can put the above aside and focus on the main point of your scenario: while it's true that your orc-hater IS getting a lot of XP, they're not really getting anything done in the game. If there constantly running away, then they're not defeating the enemy, which allows the enemy to hit back in myriad ways. And unless that character is just rock-stupid, they're going to have a very sobering moment when they wake up to find the countryside razed to the ground because their pettiness caused the plan to weaken the enemy army to collapse. Further, this isn't just the one player we're taking about: the Orc player is likely reacting to this in myriad ways. For example, if they have a belief that "all people are redeamable", then they get to test this CONSTANTLY but trying to redeem the prick. But what if they do something the Orc can't ignore, like burn down an Orc orphanage? That's another "arc" moment, but in a different direction - you lose the belief you had and gain one to reflect your new outlook on life, while also gaining XP. So if the Orc sees this little pissant intentionally running away all the time, they may replace their previous belief with "all humans are resist cowards" belief the next time it comes up and start raking in some XP, themselves. Also, what about the other players? How do they react to this? Do they take sides? Try and work out a compromise? Ignore it and pretend it's not happening? All of these things can, with a good GM and a bit of creativity, become Beliefs for those characters ("Mr. Orc is always right about humans.", "This bickering will destroy us if not resolved now.", "I must ignore all petty matters and focus on the main goal."). More XP for all now! And some interesting drama for the GM to play with and for everyone to laugh about! So the game rewards the players no matter which way you go with it: either you advance your goals and gain a bit of XP, or you gain a lot of XP and don't advance much. Either way, everyone wins. Still, I understand that this type of play isn't for everyone, so I can see why you may not like it much. But I still encourage you to take a look if you get a chance; KZread comments are terrible places to try and describe rules, so it's better to just pick up a copy of the core books of you can and read them for yourself. You may be surprised at what you find. Regardless, have fun!

@darkmage07070777

6 жыл бұрын

rashkavar Actually, nothing of the sort: characters can absolutely be compromising in most things (and it makes the game flow faster if they are). In those situations, it's a simple matter of bribery or a brief chat or similar to get through if there's an issue. It's only their beliefs that they're uncompromising on and really fight over. Mechanically, all beliefs really are is a one sentence statement about your character's thinking that involves an absolute declarative somewhere (always, never, all, etc). After that, it's the player's choice how they want to RP it, either embracing it or resisting it (and, ultimately, replacing it). You can even have deliberately conflicting beliefs and RP off of those (e.g. "You can never trust an Orc" and "All people deserve a chance to be heard" in the same character) for some great rewards as your character struggles with this internal conflict! And, after reading your character bio, I'd say yours does have a couple: "I must never confront someone about anything directly" (your story about not talking to someone directly about a problem that arose in the party) and "I'm never responsible for anything" (his nobles oblige combined with his backstory). A couple of good ones, in fact!

Great video, big thanks to Guy. The text is INDEED very helpful for following your unfolding thoughts, but maybe that's just me and my rather short attention span. What still bothers me about the good-guy-plot is the question, if one could not simply reverse the Big Bad plot structure as you introduced it to us years ago ("Sauron's plan is to take over middle earth, and he has a multitude of problems all over the place"). The other way round: the PCs have their specific, grand and common goal; they work and research and plot their way to it; there is a whole bunch of reactions from the rest of the world in order to cause them some problems every here and there and everywhere; and the closer they come to their goal, the bigger and more climactic the resistance becomes. Has anyone experience in such an approach towards plotting? Could this work?

The bullet points give a lot of structure to the video, especially for the longer ones I like that sort of thing.

Alternate take: I find that the reward scenario, when it gets difficult, is a very effective tool. Largely because the sponsor in such affairs in my games usually turns out to be the "bad guy", while appearing to be the "good guy". The players become disenchanted with the monetary compensation, complain to the sponsor or just don't report back, and then the plot unfolds.

Damn!!! I wasn't first and i was the one that asked for it a few videos ago :( I failed you Guy... Thank You for making these videos!

Hey Guy, quick question. Are you planning on making a video on the "West Marches"? I'm currently in the process of hosting such a campaign for 15+ people and was wondering what your take on it is.

Dear guy, do you think you could do something like a recorded session with commentaries about de-emming in the future? It would be really interesting and pedagogical to see. Great video!

I love your work,Guy

great video !

Another great video

I like the new graphics :)

I do have a plan to end my campaign, but im planning to leave a slight open ending, the villain IS defeated and the threat is over, but they discover that someone who was sorta helping them but not really (more or less doing whatever he feels like, and clearly having no interest in stopping the villain or the heroes because he wants to see how it plays out) was the one who motivated the villain and gave him what he needed to be the threat to the world that he was. So that way if my party really wants to keep playing those characters (I'd prefer if we were done and moved on to a new system for a while) then we can and i have an outline of where the story would go next but no concrete details. It would basically move from a war of good vs evil to law vs chaos.

@larsdahl5528

6 жыл бұрын

Time to apply your "end a campaign gracefully" -skill. (Which I think is an important skill!) Careful not to end a campaign as a cliffhanger... It can be nice to end with some unresolved issues, (Like: Is blade runner a replicant or not?) as we rarely can reach the point where we know everything. But, we should be able to say: Case solved!

@toddvogel8887

6 жыл бұрын

That was my intention, at the end the day is saved, the bad guy has been beaten, and they can all go back to their lives, but they discover that this guy was the reason everything happened, he isn't the mastermind behind it all or anything, he more or less just went to the bad guy and said "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if you took over the world? Heres a little something to get you started." Now though they know that at the end, might feel a bit betrayed but they've known that this guy does whatever he wants and made it clear he won't help them unless it seems fun for him. (Which is why he took a liking to the chaotic neutral character) Basically, the entire campaign was mischief gone wrong, but that guy had a good time at least.

So since we had villain antagonists as movers, and hero protagonists as movers... how would one go to plot a villain-protagonists campaign? My group thought about trying a bit of "Kill! Maim! Burn!" as a campaign, but I foresee issues with "Someone goes mad with the power of evil and ruins the fun of the rest." (potentially). Do you have any advice or tips for that?

@Zakiel97

6 жыл бұрын

I think there is a video about playing evil characters somewhere on this channel. If I recall it correctly in essence you gotta play the character as a somewhat good character in regards to the other players (don't kill your fellow players, don't constantly screw them over etc.), I'd say go watch that one. my take on evil characters is that they are mostly defined by being selfish and cruel, so when an opportunity arises to play one of those traits out I'll go for it. but that doesn't mean evil characters should just burn everything and kill everyone because of evilness, evil characters work best when they are either the smart, calculating type or the opportunistic henchman type, both don't go out of their way to slaughter but they will not bat an eye when cruel stuff happens and they will gladly participate in it when they think that it will benefit them. As an example I'd think of the drow society in the underdark. most drow are evil, but it's not total anarchy down there where every single day giant battles are fought, quite the opposite. It's a world with strict rules and a strong governing force - but their lawfulness doesn't affect their cruelty and disdain for lower ranking lifeforms at all.

Hi Mr. Great, I have to suggestions for you to talk about. The first one is about your impressions (commentary) or experience of playing an Epic6 D&D campain. I do so with my players because we find it more interesting to encounter a lvl 10 monster when the party is lvl 6 max. The second topic is that one (it made us try Epic6), what can you do when a party of lvl 10-12 characters previously good become murder hobos. I find it hard to make belivable that the lvl 18 wizard will go out of his studies to stop them or the chef of the guard is a lvl 16 fighter/ranger. So power currupt, how to make it belivable for the players that high tiers NPC walk the land and that bartender is not a commoner lvl 3 but instead a commoner lvl 17 with mastery in brew beer?

@Elkarus

6 жыл бұрын

Maybe the bartender is an old adventurer that ended their jorney because he fall in love with sb, adopted an orphan child from one of his adventures or simply he was too old and tired but now changed his live being a unknown bartender. Something may happen that makes him use his skills again. A powerful wizard maybe made a promise to keep an eye on somebody, something or somewhere discreetly (Like Ben Kenobi) and does his things in private but leaves his routine to see what's happening. They can be good, evil or maybe they can be evil but somebody so good and so important for him/her keeps his "evilness" in control (but if something happens to his/her important one...) Etc. They are not NPCs because they didn't accomplished anything in their lives, they are NPCs because they are not heroes/villans (or at least they are not anymore).

I am not sure where I got this from, but I was told that rather than "no, and"+"yes, but" one should use "yes, and"+"no, but" however, i am not so sure, if it even makes a difference. logically speaking, they are equivalent. however, there seems to be a difference in attitude.

The beard is looking well, my liege

I think you're missing a possibility. After all, Lawful Good wants to make the entire world Lawful Good, does it not? It just has to be more careful in the methods it uses. The Big Good will send the players on missions that look like they are fighting evil, and they are, but in the end, the missions are furthering the cause of LG. It's not railroading or ordering, the Big Good will suggest missions to players, but they are perfectly free to do their own thing. If they don't participate in the plot at first, some other adventurers will continue to advance the plot while the characters do their own thing. Eventually, the plot will become so pervasive that the players will have to take part. 121 and 122 will be pretty nebulous, but frequently they will have to be applied to the Big Good, instead of the villain of the hour. And, no offence, but many adventures in many systems have been ran with no respect to 121 or 122. (I know, I'm sorry...) The Big Good wants something badly (LG domination), but is having trouble getting it (all the other alignments). So the Big Good has the players get it for him.

My question is how exactly does one Dm for an antagonist if they are a good guy. its simply if the PC's are evil but what if they are good or neutral, how do you build that out as an adventure

8:35 Personally, I hae this kind of motivation, “oh I was here, minding my own business, when this big bad came and stepped on my toe, now I want to rip his leg off”, I believe it’s being overused AND it weakens the protagonists, they have no actual will of th ir own, they are just a bunch of savages that will overreact to whatever problem finds them, never trying to do something of their own. Recently I’ve started a Vampire campaign, I designed th city in which the game will happen, with 4 main “districts”, each with their own NPCs, their own history, their own perks and problems. I designed how the many faction presented in the book, and some factions crated just for the scenario, have taken root on the city, how have they interacted in the past 50 or so years, what are the objectives of each faction and which are their relations with each other, and so on, and then I told the players “your characters need to have at least 3 aspirations, 3 objectives, and at least one of them must be broad enough to allow you to cooperate with the other characters”. The conception of the group wasn’t on point, for some reason they just refuse the idea of grouping up one day just to create the characters, and so I had to deal with multiple players trying to create misterious characters that hid their identities while trying to discover exactly what the other players were trying to make (would be so much easier if they just had a Game 0 when they made the characters together, but nevermind), but, it proved my point. I don’t need a plot. They each looked for what a vampire their age would aspire (neonates want to build their place in the society, ancillae have just reached the point when ppl start to question why they don’t age, and have to change identities for the first time, and elders have recently seen the last person they new in life die, and find themselves in need to find new anchors with reality, with what it is to be a human, in order to avoid sucumbing to the Beast), they looked at what their factions offered and what they needed, they looked at the districts conditions and how it affected both them and those they cared about and they looked at the citiy’s recent history for aspirations for their characters... and they found it. Moreover, the system sugests that, upon a character wishing to do something “in private”, instead of keeping the other players out of it, let them roleplay as the npcs the protagonists are interacting with in their personal scenes. We ended the first game with 5 subplots and a main plot, all created by the players, their interactions with one another and the characters’ wishes, and none of it required putting a big baddy that came and stepped on their toe or some higher power giving them orders, they acted because they were insatisfied with the reality they lived in, and wished to improve it the way they saw fit, and so they took the initiative to act. And the best part? No work for me, we can play as often as possible, as all I have to do is see what the npcs would do, do they keep following their plans? Or did the players changed the sitation to the point they need to rethink what they would do? That’s all I need to keep the game going, for example, one of them decided to harass another faction (in what was, I admit, the low point of the game, the player just went “I want to go there and beat some of them”, without any planning or actual objective), this sparked a reaction from said faction, and starting next game he will be targeted by blood sorcery seeking to weaken or even destroy him, in retaliation to his previous attack, which put him at odds with the rest of the group that wanted to plan and organize a joint attack at the same faction some time later, and will be forced into action sooner, denying them the time to plan a perfect attack not out of some machinations of the GM that didn’t want the players to actually plan out something, but out of the consequences of their own actions. And so the plot moves itself with barely any work of my part, and all because I decided to give the initiative to the protagonists, they are not forced into action by some external factor, it is THEIR actions that set the plot moving.

@marcelosilveira2276

6 жыл бұрын

Tl;dr: let go of the idea of having a villain. You have multiple factions with different wishes, and they move to accomplish their own goals, and then there are the protagonists. The protagonists also have objectives of their own, defined by the players roleplaying them, and the whole game is the interactions cause by this clash of wills. Of course, it would be ideal to keep the scenario small to allow you to keep track of everything still... 4 “districts” or “cities”, whatever, each with 4 groups of 3 to 5 characters each, that have similar enough of a goal to work together to accomplish it, and a couple characters that might be interesting/important to interact with, but that don’t actively change the situation. There you have it, define what each group will try to do in each game, and let the player sail this sea, will they stop a plot and become enemies with someone? Do their objectives align with one of the other groups enough to make allies with them? Do they seek to break a group apart by fiding the slight differencies between the goals of it’s members and exploit it? What do they do when whoever they clash against go after the ppl they care about? Do the protagonists go after those their antagonists care about to gain lever on forcing the group out of their way? That is the whole game, and, as I believe my players will agree once we finish it: the very fact they can basically turn the scenario into the kind of game they want to play, will make it great. Just for reference on when it should end, the game is supposed to happen during the (nothern hemisphere) winter of 2018/2019, each game starting in a following weekend, therefore there should be around 12 games during which they may accomplish their objectives... or not...

I really liked this video and I realize that I've been doing this unknowingly. In my campaign, the PC's were given an order and promised reward for finding I woman's lost brother. Half way through they decided the reward wasn't worth it. No, they did not find the brother and the woman became an enemy against the party. Additionally, they were supposed to find clues to thwart an assassination. They were getting close and had asked a few questions to the wrong people. No, they did not stop the assassination and they were framed for it.

First of all, it's good that the video is long, I wouldn't want a short version of this pretty complicated concept. Change of slides in the background is not too invasive so you can choose whether to change them on the fly or in post-production. Second of all, I find good guy plot to be more interesting than the bad guy plot, and I've made a mistake of making such a plot for my first group, who are passive players. I had to conjure up all sorts of conflicts to lead them anywhere and now they are close to the end of that adventure. I'll definitely rewatch it for my second group of players, who have made their previous playthrough entirely about their backstories, it was a short campaign to try what it's like and all they did was chase one player's motive and get into troubles concerning second player's history that he wanted to discover.

Currently I'm DMing 2 campaigns and playing in one. One is character centered, the plot is directly related to one of the player's back story, and is very personal for the other at this point. One has an epic overarching threat (not from the get go, it got triggered by player actions at lvl 10) AND is very personal. The one I play in is... no idea. My DM has only been a player up until this campaing, so I made it easy for him: rolled up an artificer, and I have all the reasons in the world to go around after stuff. Also very curious, so I eat every plot hook gladly. Pretty sure he is doing what you talk about in this video, so I'll be sure to give him good plot ideas based on my projects. It's actually super funny, I even joked around because it's similar to pokemon, my character goes somewhere, meets a friend. Does his thing, has to leave somewhere else, finds new friends. Cycle repeats. Shame he doesn't speak English. Would 100% show him this video.

First? For once! Editing for an otherwise bad comment: Thanks for the great videos! Been very helpful as I just started making my own!

What if you are counting on them disobeying orders?

Couldn't you have like say in a war campaign the characters hunted down by their surperiors to serve a court marshall or AWOL or something?

Do the adventurers go kill the skellies on the hill? No And, the skellies start raiding farms Do the adventurers go kill the skellies? No And The skellies are now mixed with zombies and have raided 3 nearby villages Do the adventurers finally try to go kill the skellies and zombies? Yes But the Necromancer Lord now has created a Dracolich and the party gets their asses handed to them. Now the Necromancer has the party members' corpses to reanimate.

New style is much easier to follow.

Are u haunting Matt and rebbecca

Are to the gm from matt and Rebecca

If "the bad guys want something badly" then ... is it not... "the good guys want something goodly"?

@HowtobeaGreatGM

6 жыл бұрын

No. Remember the caveat - and is willing to sacrifice everything. Good guys won't do that. They won't sacrifice everything. They plan with good intentions, and respond to difficulties. They don't slaughter, maim, and obliterate. A king might want to save his kingdom, but he won't sacrifice his only daughter to do that. Unless he is an evil king. Moral values aside, it makes for a better structure to have a plan that escalates. At least that is how I see it :)

I think Good Guy Plots are always railroaded, no matter how many switches you have. If players not following the captain's order _derails_ your campaign, then it was on rails in the first place. If it is necessary to get the players back on _track_ every now and again, then that usually is a rail track. I think not doing something and not doing anything should always be a choice for the players and should be rewarded with consequence. And i just don't see how that is supposed to work when at the same time the PCs are supposed to drive forward the plot.

This is a lot of food for thought but I honestly think if you talked to your players a lot of will never happen.

Didn't care for the text because I felt like it took away from your presentation and focus. I'd rather follow you than text.

@larsdahl5528

6 жыл бұрын

Text are not for to be read while listening. It is for to be read in the little window that shows when hovering the mouse pointer over the video progress bar. (So you can find where in the video what you are looking for is!)