Відео

I think comparing yourself to CR and Brennan is like comparing McDonalds to homemade food. One is a commercial product made to satisfy a general public with easy and overdone recipes and the other is something tailored to the friend and acquaintances that experience something made together while cooking at your place. I think Matt and Brennan are average good ttrpg narrators that have their own way of tailoring an experience to whomever they play with, just so happen that they are also entertainers and know how to put up a show for the audience. This might seem obvious but it is often overlooked that the players matter as much as the narrator to have a good time. I personally find CR boring and could not sit through a single episode, but watched Dungeons and Drag Queens and had a great time not because of Brennan but because of the Queens that were fun personalities to see them experience the game for the first time. Sounds tribal but I also have grown a strong dislike for the videogameification of ttrpgs and how DnD has made things worse in that regard, so thank you for bringing that out :)

I feel like I can usually improvise pretty well, but recently I had a player with a lot of technical issues (they were late, robotic voice glitches, left themselves mute and thought we could hear them...) and it totally put me in tilt. Had to take ten to refocus.

I think most GMs are hard-pressed to improvise to the extent that you are talking about. From my perspective, I like to have heroes, villians, monsters, settings kind of figured out ahead of time so that I can largely avoid accidentally improvising something that is lame, illogical, or inconsistent. However, I am all for improvising in the moment if it makes sense with the players and the details that we already defined. I think a big blocker of improvising is thinking that you need monster stat blocks available to reference if adding monsters or villians on the fly. It makes sense to me to totally improvise the details of monsters and NPCs you use, acknowledging that its not reasonable to expect that you will be flipping through books and nailing down the stats you need, when you can just make it up based on your experience and memory. Give those goblins rings of regeneration, blue glowing tattoes, and belts of hill giant strength, why not? The same goes for improvising rules like ship combat or chase mechanics, etc, until you have the time to pick up and learn rules like that which take time and cooperation with players to acquire.

I really needed to watch this today. I'm actually in the process of writing a bit of an open-source introductory module for d20 games (oh no, lol), to show new players and groups how to run one. Thank you for the timely reminder that not everyone likes or wants to play modules; I need to put that as a big chunk of disclaimer text right at the top. Also, twenty years is a hell of a long time to run games for; I've been in and around the hobby that long, but - hat's off to you, that's an achievement. And if you've had players coming back consistently for all that time - no questions asked, that's the mark of a great game-master. People don't come back for bad games for _decades_ - months, maybe, but not decades. And if you're curious about modules - from someone that does use them (and hoard them, in embarrassingly large piles), it's like... you know those buckets you can buy that are pre-moulded so that they make instant sandcastles? If you like _building_ sandcastles, they make no sense. But if you like _breaking_ sandcastles, or playing games with them as a bit of destructible scenery, those buckets are great time-savers. It's the difference between creative expression through _adding_ to your fictional world, vs. creative expression through changing things, or taking things away. For me (and most people I've gamed with) a well-run module is less like a railroad and more like the raw chunk of material used for a sculpture. Or in some cases, the original text being sent up by the parody version your players are creating. There's an established world with established rules and parameters, and into it come this group of people who could and probably will do anything. (A well-written module will understand this; _not all of them are,_ and I've read more than a few that are basically entertaining recounts of someone else's game - fun to read, but if you sit down to play them they instantly become awful, because the game has no scope for anyone actually at the table to do anything, as it's all been set in place by the author. If you've ever picked up a module that seemed really dry, lifeless, and empty - that may be intentional; the players [edit: including the game-master] and their actions should bring it to life, not the module's pre-written text reads and plot events) So basically, they are a bit like that prompt book for writing - well, a cross between that and a mad-libs, maybe. But a mad-libs that only gets read one sentence at a time, and in which the subsequent sentences you read depend on what words people fill in. (To be clear - I'm not saying that you have to like modules or want to run them in future, now; I'm just trying to give a bit of an explanation of the mind-set they appeal to.)

I often struggle with feeling like I'm a terrible GM, but objectively I know that it's all from when I'm running for platers who need the multiple choice events. I rely on my players a LOT.

"Someone once said: Don't try to be a great man. Just be a man, and let history make its own judgment." - William Riker I think I have a very similar approach to GMing as you do and also hesitate to proclaim myself as somehow objectively a "good GM". My GMing approach has long been centered around what I call "stimulus and response" play, very much like a collaborative writing exercise. As the GM, I'll set an initial scene or set of motivating events and then ask the players "What do you do now?" While I may have some preconstructed story elements rolling around in my head (potential allies, villains, locations, schemes, etc.), what happens next in the game very much hangs on what the players choose to do. Whatever decision(s) they make, I will take that as a prompt to deduce and improvise the next set of stimuli and the process repeats. In that sense, the players are just as (if not more so) responsible for shaping the "story" of the game as I am and part of the thrill of GMing is being just as surprised and challenged by the sequence of events as the players. Am I a "good GM"? I suppose that would depend on who you asked. Most of the friends that I've run games for over the decades have greatly enjoyed the style of play that I live by. I have, however, occasionally encountered players that clearly didn't envision the structure of an RPG in that same fashion. I've had a few of those players that you described, the sort that look to the GM to provide them a list of "permissible options" from which they can select and know that they are "on the right track", as if the track were already laid out before them. That's very much not my style and I've always found it difficult to connect meaningfully with such players.

Ye I would consume more low-prep videos, probably - and I would care exactly zero about the damn thumbnail. Those are for channels with an ambition to grow.

From my pov your show exists in the ttrpg youtube sphere as basically the ONLY foil to the hardcore "prepper" style of GM advice. Your show convinced me that my similar "low prep" style was actually legitimate. Before I ran into your channel, I'll admit fully that I had guilt trips and Issues about running games. I for one would love and adore more "low prep advice" or a roadmap of things that you do for a game besides prep. And I would also love to see your FATE LetsPlay as an example of that low prep style shining through.

yea I agree with you, I have no idea why the heck we can't watch "Batgirl" since it was already done! Not like they couldn't put it out at least in a streaming platform. It is annoying. Don't beat yourself up, just make fun stuff. I found your no prep or low prep DM advice interesting since most of us do the opposite.

I can truly emphasize with what you are saying. I myself am thinking of starting to post videos on youtube to talk about rpg design stuff, but I am not fully convinced that I have something to say that hasn't been said already, so I get self suspicious about the true reasons behind me wanting to publish content (especially since I already have a fully accomplished professional career in science, and do not aim to make money out of this) Anyway, I, for one, do enjoy your videos and usually find your opinions quite interesting.

Keep up the good work, Kristian. Just put the Fate show up. It's still early in the life of the channel, one video or another isn't going to make or break you, and it'll be a good way to see what's working for the next one. Also, the thumbnail made me laugh and got me to open the video. I've enjoyed everything you've done so far and I've gotten a lot from your GMing philosophy videos. 👍

I'm really sad, I can't participate in the kickstarter… I wish you best of luck! I feel the regret flowing through the borders of my screen: I'm sorry to hear that…

As they say, restrictions breed creativity. And with you having lots of creativity already, I can't even imagine how you'll cope with this :D More seriously though, it's tough obviously. But I hope you'll manage well enough to keep supplying us with wonderful videos (and one can only hope the Tempest Kickstarter is going to hit the sweetspot of "doing well, but not so much it causes much more work at the same time")

Changes like this often have the effect of focusing you on the real priorities. Here’s hoping you turn rolling with it into transforming it.

It really sucks when one is forced to make cut backs or reroute the path forward. Us Indie devs rarely have the luxury of settling down with life and routine so we can just work on the stuff we burn for. But then again maybe that's why the indie market is filled with wonderful passion projekts that survived the obstacle course of life, that bigger companies can just throw money at and solve! XD Keep on trucking!

Sorry to hear it! On to new things!

My name is Kristian too

I really like the game! It might be useful to make meeples' shape cuboid-like so they don't roll, when prone (knocked-down?) I'm really looking forward to the release of the difficulty settings!

This is a great game. My friends and I really enjoyed playing it at UKGE this year. I can't wait to support it on Kickstarter!

I'm not too fond of the need to optimize problem-solving strategies in compliance with PC's strengths or weaknesses. It often prompts mental gymnastics (which are very well portrayed in Risus), such as making clerics be familiar with magic (which makes magic more generic and homogeneous in-game). I'd prefer to do what my character would do (no, not **that** way) and for mechanics to take care of everything else: it's not like I solve everything with maths in reality, just because I'm good at it, and I really like it staying that way. Naturally, cooperative action leads to some degree of specialization, but I really like when the system has enough counterbalances to relieve me of thinking about making everything pleasingly internally realistic: I enjoy systems with minutiae that is not going to affect the gameplay directly (possibly), but that has severe indirect effects. The consequence of this approach is usually a group of well-rounded PCs. Unfortunately these things are usually poorly handled in these games by design (and don't get me wrong, it really livens up the pace), but I'd really like to know _*what you think about this*:_ surely the players wouldn't know where the black dragon would reside, but if I knew, what it's life cycle is, based on it's habitat, I could've sprinkled in some biological details, which my players may find delighting, and a setting-book paired with a specialized (unique, fine-tuned) system for that might be quite beneficial.

thanks

I was going to bring up mansions of madness and journeys in middle earth, both having an app atm that could easily receive a sprinkling of Ai to make it more 'fun'. I think Ai will start becoming an option for simpler modules very soon purely by having them run the game the same way as mansions of madness is run. We will however probably notice that modules become increasingly simpler at first. Its a fair take on the abuse of Ai but there is also way more people willing to play than willing to dm. If wotc didnt come up with it, someone 3rd party would have soon.

you don't like VTT's?... now there's a video topic waiting to be told

I really like Fate for a low maths game. I just wonder if PCs are more overpowered than would be typical in a game like CoC. If so, does that remove some of the helplessness that comes with horror? (I've never run the probabilities, but I feel like my players succeed at higher rates in Fate.)

The first 20 minutes of the video was a minor disaster …(I see what you did there 👀)

Don't go bankrupt 😱

Love Fate myself, and is my "default" game to run for my group of friends. I tuned it for running a pulp adventure style game, and have yet to be disappointed with it. My favorite part of Fate is the skill roll mechanic results being centered around 0, so you know the competent character is more likely to get a competent result. Rather than other games where the die roll determines it mostly by luck.

I have tried FATE many times. I don't gel with it. I have played two great sessions and over ten awful ones. Unsurprisingly, the two great sessions were based on settings and genres that everyone around the table enjoyed and knew well. The others were either poorly described settings or where the GM disagreed on something that I thought very important to the setting (I will never forget the call in a Star Wars Fate game: "Yes, I know you have Daring Smuggler +4 but sneaking through the Imperial blockade is a bit of a stretch" - hang on this is what smugglers do!? And because of that call, I couldn't trust ANYTHING on my character sheet, and I also noticed that no one else could trust theirs either. What this example says to me is that FATE works well or at all if everyone agrees on the genre rules). Some other issues. You never have to tell me the odds; I know if I will fail at something, but there is always a way to earn that +2 to turn that failure into a guaranteed success. As a player, I am now bored. There is no thrill because I am the one deciding if I fail or not. Or I am horrified as the GM will pull a John Wick on me and place me in a scene that tests my true mettle as a HERO and pulls a stunt in which something VERY personal to my character is compromised. To illustrate. I get given a dilemma. Choose the hero path and work for the common good, and something personal to my character suffers. But if I protect what is important to me, the setting now knows I am no hero. This only happens if the GM has you immersed. But it has been done. And some, like John Wick, advise it should be... My other issue is My +3 Fists of Steel are as effective as your Twin High Guard Blasters +3. Or the worst one I had to put up with: his Dragon Sword + 3 was as effective as my Battalion of Musketeers +3, and yes, the GM said, "I do mean wherever and whenever, including the battlefield" It dawned on me in that game; that The Dragon Sword PC was the Hero and the rest of us where his ineffective hangers-on (Yes these were pre-gens at a convention), but when I suggested this to the GM he shot me down and said I had no imagination (unfortunately the rest of the table agreed with me, including the player of the Dragon Sword PC). And yes, it probably was a bad game of FATE, but this was being run by a guy who was at the time trying to persuade people to buy the game and was described as "an excellent GM of FATE". Why did I play it so often despite having such a terrible time? Becuse the game SHOULD WORK FOR ME. I still don't know why it doesn't.

Having a baller time in my post-modern dimensional hopping low-fantasy mystery campaign using Fate. You just won't see that many adjectives in another system!

For me FATE is not narrative enough, Fiasco fits more my taste. Mostly for two reasons, Fiasco is GM-less and it has no skills to roll. Sure, I like the random element of dice, but I hate that too many games only apply that to the character competences. Even the supposedly narrative dice in FFG games still just do that. In the end that is why I design my own system, which I categorise more as a role-playing experience than as a game.

A lot of excellent comments. I think you have summarised exactly my problems with DnD

There's a lot that I like about Fate. I remember when I first read Spirit of the Century all those years ago and the concept of Aspects absolutely blew my mind. That's my favorite element of Fate, the Aspect system. It's very clever and opens up lots of creative space. Over time, I developed some quibbles with the system itself. I've tried for years but I'm still not the biggest fan of the core Fudge dice mechanic. I don't think I can point to anything objectively wrong with it, I suppose it just feels a bit clunky and wasteful to me. I also think that Fate (or at least some iterations of it) can get deceptively crunchy in places, which you wouldn't expect from a game that presents itself being as whimsical and open as Fate does. But where it excels is the creative flexibility and narrative punch that it affords both the GM and the players. These days, I think I've gravitated to the core conceits of Powered by the Apocalypse as a rules framework over Fate, mostly because I feel like PbtA facilitates a slightly more focused set of expectations (and thus seems more accessible and digestible to new players), has a slightly more interesting (but still quite simple) dice mechanic with the sliding success scale and still leaves the game open to the best narrative expressions of Fate but without the extra little fussiness that occasionally emerges with juggling so many Aspects. Even so, I often borrow ideas from Fate when I run PbtA (or any other RPG, really) because there is so much inspirational design happening within.

I wouldn't touch GenAI with a 10 foot pole for anything, at all. For a game of creativity DO NOT be incompetent and use these things. Wanna play ALONE? Try video game. Want ideas? Watch fantasy media If I see a DM using ANY type of GenAI I'm out 100%, just shows they lack creativity and a moral compass. AI can't process emotions or critical thinking, so you would be just left with a mechanical game with no soul, no depth, no nothing

Finally! I'm glad you got off the fence and can admit you really like Fate.

I love this short cos it depicts the clear lack of exposure of dnd players/DMs to other ttrpgs. It's like buying shoes to cut them into sandals. Sure, if might kinda work but is it really worth it? Or like if the concept of a restaurant was analogous to McDonald's, but every time they upgrade their menu they would add more and more dishes from other places in the shape of burgers and fries: "do you like sushi? Have a raw fish and rice burger! Do you like Italian cuisine? Lasagna and pizza burger!" It just frustrates me for all the smaller or non-wotc creators out there that have brilliant game designs but the only time they are mentioned is to add pieces of them to the same Mc Menu of DnD.

I agree on quite a lot of levels. I actually think d&d crunchy wargamification and proscriptive modules are good for the RPG committee, if d&ds creators want to implement AI GMing they will have to take their game all the more in that direction. The way it's good is firstly that it will create a game that is familiar and comfortable to anyone who has ever played a computer game or a tabletop wargame. I think this will please some people greatly and those that it doesn't will look elsewhere. That's where I actually think the direction d&d is taking its game is a good thing, because they are creating truly fertile ground for other games to prosper in!

Built on stolen material, which the company behind the so called AI:s profit on, so yes. It would be, and is, a bad thing. Also, gpt and those are not AI, they are LLM. Calling it AI is a marketing hype/scam attempt.

I think that if it keeps going like it has been that a chat gpt 6 would be a more creative type DM than most people are capable of without having taken acting classes and communication classes and the like. I don't know how much of that is a job, I have never actually hired a DM although I have paid for pizza from time to time. I did once give a guy ten bucks to cover gas, but he was a fellow PC. Sometimes it isn't easy to have time to do the prep work, and it would be a whole lot more convenient to have an AI DM, perhaps a less serious online session over discord. With an AI DM'ing we wouldn't get those arguments between rules lawyers, or at least it might be amusing to do so, maybe you got the whole group against the AI. I feel like in a lot of cases, it was the DM who pulled the shortest straw. In those cases an AI would be awesome.

I'd say about half the people you run in to at organized play are worse than an AI game master. Which is pretty sad in and of itself, but, yeah.

I used ChatGPT to run me a TTRPG game and it was a master at Improv… fantastic at making stuff up on the fly based on my actions… the perfect Improv GM.

Just curious which games you would say are more narrative? Things like Fate, or just games that have a bit more social and exploration aspects to them? Thanks for a well-thought out video.

...hm... the salamander´s would like to give you a hug and remind you Vulcan Lives !!! :)

Space Marines are probably fun at parties if they aint sad.

Just stopping by to say - thanks for putting videos like this out; I haven't had time to watch these latter two yet, but having different people do in-depth discussions of how GMing TTRPGs works for them is really good. It's - I've been playing these games long enough that if you sat me down and asked me to explain what a role-playing game is, I could do it in one or two sentences... as far as the players playing _characters_ goes. But as for describing what the game-master does? Feh. It's been decades, I've done the role myself on and off for a lot of that, and I _still_ couldn't tell you what it actually is, in simple terms that could be understood and emulated by someone who'd never watched a game before. So - I know I posted a bit of a 'disagree' comment on the first one, but I'm also interested to hear what else you've got to say and looking forward to watching the rest of these when I get time. (I know my improv could use work, hah)🤘 (If you're interested in the two-sentence definition, what I have right now is this: 'It's a game, where most of the players will create, describe, portray, and control the actions of a character or characters, within a shared fictional world which is also governed by its own set of internal rules-conceits, referred to as "mechanics" to avoid confusion with rules that apply to players themselves; players drive these characters to pursue various goals within that world, and are challenged in this by mechanical constraints upon the characters, sometimes by other players and those players' characters directly, and almost always by another player known as a "game master" who is more associated with the fictional world itself than any particular character.' Don't know if it's boiled down to the barest essentials yet - 'two sentences' is being very generous about conjuctions - but it at least catches most of the big entries into the category. Including LARPs and solos! I'm unreasonably proud of that)

While the group is amazing and the GM is an absolute pro with impressive rules knowledge, creativity and improv skills, and the setting and special rules also seem quite interesting, this is a prime example of why I don't vibe with 5E. So much pointless rules minutia without real impact on what's going on, so little player influence and engagement. 5E roleplay pretty much stands and falls with how good a story teller the GM is and how much the players are willing to listen in and act like their roles matter. The gameplay mechanics add nothing at all to the plot. And this session even hardly includes the slog that is 5E combat as far as I have watched. Not a critique of the players at all, it's pretty much a compliment that I managed to get 3 hours into this despite this being 5E! Just prefer PBTA or Fate or something like that.

I enjoyed your explanation. Also, your analysis of railroading. These concepts also inspired several new areas for me to explore... like Quantum Trolls. 😎

Based on you both talking about different styles GMs have when running the game, one style almost stopped me from finding this as my main hobby. I was first introduced to D&D when was 12, very nearly 13. I had gone back to where I had lived previously to stay wtih a friend, Matt. Matt was about a year older than me, and he used to organise the kids on the street during the summer holidays and get us to play games. He had us play extended LARPS; he led them but allowed us to have our ideas and run with them. There were no rules, and we lived at Matthew's whim. We had great fun. I still have one on two C90 cassettes, and I still have a cassette player in case I ever want to listen to them again. Matthew told me D&D was a better version of what we did with those LARPS as there was "real structure, and you knew what your character could do". And so I went "In Search of the Unknown" (Yep we were playing module B1). My first character died in the first corridor because of a trap. My second character died in the third room we entered; I think it was death by Orc. I then had to wait two hours before my third character was introduced. I was told I was one of the captured adventurers the orcs had chained up, so not only did I wait, but I also had to watch my two companions have fun combat before they saved me. We then set off, and I got much further with this Cleric until I fell into a pit trap filled with acid. I remember it so well because I came away with the belief that "Role Playing Games are awful!". About a year later, I discovered that there was a D&D game going on at the youth club I was part of; I wasn't sure about it but was told, "Look, based on the books you read, you should like these games", so I went along and watched. Wow, this was so different; there was a story, and there was combat only "when there was no choice". I joined the game and was told "This is the rule book, but we will explain the basics as, to be honest, they are guidelines, and there are a ton of rules in there we don't like." Eventually, this led to me buying Warhammer Fantast Roleplaying 1st Edition and becoming a GM when I ran for a group of friends from school. That turned me into a forever GM.

Jolly interesting video yet again. Firstly a little context on me. I have never ran d&d and never will (however I am very familiar with the rules from actual play shows), I'm not a writer and haven't ever put anything more meaningful than a shopping list down on paper. I'm currently running a game I've mentioned before in the comments called the Burning Wheel and I found your video very interesting because it maps pretty closely to how it's going and how I run it. The third I find mind boggling is that Burning Wheel codifies and mecanises a lot of the things you are talking about, to the point that I would have no idea how to run a game like that using d&d. Question for you: Burning Wheel has a system called beliefs that makes the players tell the GM what their characters (and by extension they) want from the game. But how much do you get your players to tell you ahead of the session what their characters want to do? Also how much world building do you do? Burning Wheel has forced me to think about the culture of our setting a lot and the motivations of the NPCs

More and more, I am prepping to improv. Me as a Newbie GM: 100% improv A couple years later: Meticulously planned, forking adventures with a reactive living world Me now: 90% improv, 5% reference or roll tables, 4% talking to players, 1% stealing.

Personally I don't consider anything that is done during "session time" to be prep. What is actually being done is not as important as *when*. I think of prep as anything that is done in advance, it usually can be done as pre-planned events (railroading-ish) like coming up with boss battles and battlemaps, or just having stuff "just in case", like generic locations, NPCs, etc. To me, creating the setting, the backstories, the characters, collaboratively with the players during a session is not prep in any way or form (even if the result is "a world" or "a bunch of information"). I myself am a fan of Fate, and of no-prep games. An example of something that could be considered "prep" for no-prep games is coming up with a list of questions to fill in during play. The answers aren't prep, but writing down the list of questions is prep. Using a ready-made list of questions (like, back when I ran Dresden Files premade adventures) is not prep, since these were made by someone else (I guess writing a module or adventure counts as "prep" by somebody, but not by me! xD). BTW these questions were awesome ("so and so NPC is friend of one of the player characters. Which one? Were they former lovers?"). But also, anything that takes only a minute before a session like, trying to come up with a basic outline of the starting situation, technically is prep, but in practice I wouldn't even count it. Having a "junk drawer" of ideas could be considered prep. I mean, it is prep. It's also a very "low-prep" method to me. I wouldn't sweat it to call it whatever. Another requisite, in my opinion, to call something prep is that it *HAS TO BE WRITTEN DOWN*. Even if I spend 8 hours staying awake during the night of all the cool things I'm going to throw at the players next session, if it's not on paper or a text file somewhere I won't call it prep, no matter what. I just call that *thinking*.