Want to continue the discussion of the nuance of TTRPG storytelling? Come talk about what makes a good plot-twist! ua-cam.com/video/6Qn5n793R7E/v-deo.html
Thanks for inviting disagreement. It is not the DM's job to give the players the type of game they want. I DMed that way for decades and those DMs are a blessing to the community. Praise them, encourage them and love them. But some of us are not inspired to run a game with the player's expectations as the driving motivation. A GM should do what inspires them. For many, they are inspired by creating as much fun as possible for their friends and for others, they want to create a world with specific characteristics and scenarios and invite others to explore it with them. What is incumbent on DMs like me, is to communicate that as early as possible to a prospective player so they can decline with as little awkwardness as possible. Basically, I'm semi-retired and want to DM for me now.
"When you look at a player character you understand in your head that it's not actually a person". Bold of you to assume it's easy for an average person to understand their characters are NOT supposed to be self-inserts...
DMs trying to create and direct a specific narrative is also problematic. So many have planned out the story and arcs before a session 0 is even arranged. As DM I like to think of myself an arbiter, rather than storyteller. I adjudicate the actions of the players, accomodating their decisions, and let the dice fall where they will - THIS is what creates the story and makes it interesting, even to me as then I have less control or knowledge of what will happen and can be surprised just as much as the players. I hate when DMs fudge to accomodate players or push their preplanned stories.
Excellent way to look at it. The way I describe it to my players is "I'm not telling a story, I'm creating a world. What story is told is based on what you do with it."
I always type quite openly with my players but I’m also pretty good at picking up on what they want to do. Talk with your players and maybe have a couple things written down that they’re looking to do so that you can lean into that.
I have noticed a lot of toxic players demanding the DM know everything without any form of communication. The DM has a more difficult job then everyone else combined, so its the player's duty to At Least tell the DM what they want.
I agree with you on the main job of the GM. I create situations, the players bring their characters into those situations, and together we create a story that could never have existed without all of us. And of course there's a lot of little interactions and communications in and out of the game that affect this story. That's one of the reasons that I love being the GM. I get to give each player the story they want to experience, weave those disparate stories into the larger world that I've created, and give the characters together a larger story with adventure and mystery and fun NPCs and all the other cool things.
Great video! This is an ever-present topic that I think is central to the philosophy of GMing and TTRPGs. I just saw another video where the players went completely bonkers and broke the campaign for a new DM, and it was really sad to see how rough it was for the DM. Unfortunately, that leads to DM/GM burnout or DM/GM doing shallow adventures without any prep to accommodate random desires of players. I think that your assumption about players running their characters like realistic people is a lynchpin that is not always so - in fact, the players who (often inspired by bucket shenanigans in Skyrim) most often break a campaign are TRYING to break and exploit it, and are NOT acting in realistic ways. Some DMs/GMs are fine with this and enjoy the challenge of constantly pivoting/adapting, and that's great. But ultimately there needs to be an honest and direct talk during Session Zero about what the limits of a campaign/game are, and the entire table needs to be willing to work together on that and, as you emphasize, build trust with each other. Thanks for contributing to this conversation - it'll always be an important one.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment! I completely agree that having an open and honest discussion during Session Zero is crucial in setting the expectations and boundaries of the game.
Whenever I make a character, I make the backstory build into the build. And I also make plot hooks, or potential plot hooks, for my DM to capitalize on. With each major point, I add 2-3 different ways he can use it in the future. If the DM latches onto an idea, I make it canon and we continue from there. With this understanding, we know where my character will go. We know what the motivation is, either as I adventure, or once the plot hook is baiting us. I let the DM keep his surprises, but they don’t clash with my ideal for my personal story. My first character was shared by _All Things DnD,_ the playlist is on my channel. I wanted my character to be slow to trust, but desperate to have friends. He was also kidnapped, sold into slavery, and used as a punching bag at the colosseum that bought him. The DM made the latter into a campaign plot point, with the colosseum master as a character from another player’s past. But he capitalized on the former by giving my character PTSD after he finally regained confidence and trusted his party with his biggest secret, to end the very same session when that happened.
Really great advice, I'm gonna try to be more open with my more closed-up players on what they want from the story. It's easy enough to plan with the more open players, but not so with the ones who don't speak out a lot. I'm a big proponent of session 0 and every game should have it. Though to add to the discussion, I wanna say that there has to be a balance between the story the players want and what the DM wants. There are those who forget that it's not only the players who are playing the game; the DM is *also* playing. So even if the players get the story they want, if the DM never gets to tell the story *they want*, they're now the ones at risk of getting disappointed with the game. The DM should talk with the players about the game they want to run, and what direction, theme, genre, or objective they want the group to take the adventure in. I think there should be a GM-Player 30/70 or 40/60 split in telling the story, that way everybody's happy.
You bring up an important point about the role of the DM as a player in the game, and it's crucial that they also get to tell the story they want while still considering the desires of the players. The idea of a GM-Player split, such as 30/70 or 40/60, is a great suggestion for ensuring that both the players and the DM have a fulfilling experience in the game. Session 0 is a crucial tool for establishing this balance, and for ensuring that everyone is on the same page about what kind of story they want to create together.
This is why I want to learn to be a better DM, because I want to create a story driven around my players, with a central theme surrounding it. Build a story with them before even playing our first session. Of course I wouldn't work out any plot twists or surprises with them, but I would love to know what kind of game they want to play, what kind of character they want to play, and what they want to achieve with that character. You also state that players may find out later on that what they originally wanted out of their character may change. Well honestly that's like having an interpersonal character arc IRL. Continue talking to your players to work out where they feel their characters are now and to see if they still want to achieve what they originally wanted with their character, or if they have something different in mind. As always you've created another amazingly thought provoking video Jay! Keep up the great work! Oh and in case you were curious, I want my character to be a very strong and tough fighter that uses a series of moves to defeat his enemies. And his name is JOHN CENAAAA DOO DO DO DOOOOO!
Letting the players succeed, even on a failing roll, but at a cost reminds me of Blades in the Dark. That system has lots of ways to adjust the situation; you can improve your chances by lowering your expectations (or vice-versa), you can push yourself hard to add a die to a pool, but you can also accept what's called a "Devil's Bargain" where you explicitly agree to a cost in return for a better chance of succeeding. But then again, Blades in the Dark's success/failure is less of a binary and more about how much you can do and for what cost...
Hard agree! In DnD specifically, I've found it's really helpful to go back as a DM and read the flavor text in the PHB (or class source) of the class each pc starts with. It tells you a lot about the kind of archetype they could fit into, and inform how you write with those archetypes in mind (either to embrace or subvert).
Why I most of the time do spiral campaigns. Make a city and few things around the city or in it. From there, the characters build the story through choices and consequences. Good players give you quite a lot to pull from just from back stories and what not I find
The investment and attention of other players at the table are very important too. It's unfortunately too common for others at the table to want to immediately move on to either their own goals or an overarching threat rather than praise one of their party members for character growth. And what's worse is when the party *expects* a character, often the 'funny one' or the 'team mom' to remain the same. It's important to update the rest of the table what you want out of the game, not just the DM.
I am actually focusing on a PC-Driven campaign this time, having finally finished my own setting. At the moment I just have 2 players, we talk about how our characters are feeling outside of game and how my friends feel about the characters. I feel like I do a decent job of interpreting what they envision for their PC while keeping it fun and engaging. To me the key is to be kind but to also understand emotion and its complexity, understand how it can shift and mold someone and how every person has a different perspective on everything. Talk to your players if you want to focus on the narrative, try to find a middle ground that suits everyone and try to be kind, above all. EDIT: We have also been doing sessions 0 between "chapters" of the campaign, every 20 sessions or so, where we meet and talk about goals and where we are going story wise!
Hey J! Love your content and it’s inspired me to try dming! I’m planning My first campaign currently, I’m confident in most aspects but what I’m most nervous about is encounter design. I can know what the party needs to do but I’m struggling to understand how to gauge what to challenge them with. I’ve read from the book but I’m still unsure…any advice for designing challenging, but fair, encounters? I mean I can throw 100 enemies at them but that’s not fun. I can throw one supper duper tough enemy but that might also be unfun. I’m not talking about a climactic set piece but more of: “bandits ambush you” how do I design that ambush in a interesting way?
I would explain that very differently, but the core issue at hand between character motivation and player interests indeed something that people do not always know how to bridge.
So am i crazy for this but... As a DM i dont let the dice determine failure as a whole, sure dice may cause you to fail that dex save but ultimately i dont let my players fail the overall objective because bad luck, if my players fail its because of their decisions leading up to something, like deciding to take on something over their head and known to be over their head. now not saying dice mean nothing to me because they are the core of how things get done, i just dont like to let randomness determine enjoyment of the game. even if a character dies i have a NPC show up that gives them the chance to come back to life at a cost and that cost can be any thing of importance to the character outside money. idk if i explained that terribly but curious if im just an outlier here.
I'm currently playing a kensei monk in a Descent into Avernus game. A lot of devils are resistant to my attacks because they're non-magical. Until level 6 that is, where I get an ability that turns my attacks magical. When we got to hell at 5th level I warned the other players that for a short while I wouldn't be that effective in combat due to my non-magic. Not even half an hour into the session the DM threw a weird Deus Ex Machina at us that gave us a +1 sword. I was so excited to roleplay my characters frustration with their ineffectiveness and then the awesome moment when they learn how to channel Ki into magic. And my DM took that from me because he didn't understand what I wanted
Without question, such a Deus ex machina moment sounds weird and lame. As a GM I can only say - tell them. Tell the GM what you want. If they don't know, then they can only do what they themselves think you want. If you tell your other players you're gonna be ineffective, it's probable the GM just wanted to help you feel less useless.
The problem I see is that with the tools provided by D&D and similar games character arcs are totally nonexistent. So you can do it but it is not even suggested in the playing material. Systems like pbta, cod, cypher among others have character arcs as part of their xp system making this upfront to the players and even given character growth incentives by xp points to do so
I prefer character-driven storytelling, and my campaign has lasted 8 years because of it. I would not have had enough material on my own to make it this far, but picking up what my players are putting down and running with it, planning events that play to their interests and backstories, letting them drive the direction of the plot, thinking of ways to complicate their ambitions, that's the stuff that makes players feel appreciated, feel ownership of the story, and keeps them coming back. Everyone is part of the creative process.
@@Delmworks You have to worry about a whole world full of NPC's, they have to play one character. Complicated NPC's are overrated. They don't need that much depth, the game isn't about them.
I just wish the story that my players wanted was more than "I am searching for magic items for some huge reason to my character that we will never actually get to because I am from the other side of the world for some reason and the campaign will never go there because everyone voted to start the campaign on this continent, and there is no main character in this game, so really I just want magic items, and I will also be sarcastic about literally everything you say, aren't I a good friend." "BTW, where are my magic items?" We've only played 2 sessions and you have done nothing. They are a ways off. Especially since we started at lvl 5 and everyone started with a couple of magic items anyways.
Ok, but in the scenario given, the DM has messed up. The player asked for their fighter to be humbled so they could go through an arc and the DM continued to kick his ass after that. Not saying the player shouldn't talk to them and explain what they want again but it would be a strange assumption for the DM to think the player wanted to be eternally the punching bag.
meh. I'm among those who say that what's important about a game, is the gameplay. The story is to enhance the gameplay experience, to provide agency for the gameplay.
Through this process the DM would push their personal feelings onto the players. You set up the combat, if they win or lose is on them, how much the players invest in that again is on them. If you are letting them win or setting it up for them to fail, you have failed as a DM. Bad advice that sounds like good advice, this is a pretty consistent issue in this hobby.
This is absolute baloney. It sounds like you have to plot and plan every aspect of the game. That NOT a game, that's a play. In a game, things happen randomly. Your version of this doesn't allow for that.
Want to continue the discussion of the nuance of TTRPG storytelling? Come talk about what makes a good plot-twist! ua-cam.com/video/6Qn5n793R7E/v-deo.html
Me: "So, what do you guys want for your characters?" Players: (deer-in-headlights look, chirping crickets)
Thanks for inviting disagreement. It is not the DM's job to give the players the type of game they want. I DMed that way for decades and those DMs are a blessing to the community. Praise them, encourage them and love them. But some of us are not inspired to run a game with the player's expectations as the driving motivation. A GM should do what inspires them. For many, they are inspired by creating as much fun as possible for their friends and for others, they want to create a world with specific characteristics and scenarios and invite others to explore it with them. What is incumbent on DMs like me, is to communicate that as early as possible to a prospective player so they can decline with as little awkwardness as possible. Basically, I'm semi-retired and want to DM for me now.
"When you look at a player character you understand in your head that it's not actually a person".
Bold of you to assume it's easy for an average person to understand their characters are NOT supposed to be self-inserts...
Love the use of Vegeta as a metaphor though lol
He remains one of my favorite characters of all time tbh
DMs trying to create and direct a specific narrative is also problematic. So many have planned out the story and arcs before a session 0 is even arranged. As DM I like to think of myself an arbiter, rather than storyteller. I adjudicate the actions of the players, accomodating their decisions, and let the dice fall where they will - THIS is what creates the story and makes it interesting, even to me as then I have less control or knowledge of what will happen and can be surprised just as much as the players. I hate when DMs fudge to accomodate players or push their preplanned stories.
Excellent way to look at it. The way I describe it to my players is "I'm not telling a story, I'm creating a world. What story is told is based on what you do with it."
This. I've been in a campaign where I felt like I was a passenger along for the ride, and nothing I did had any impact on the larger story.
I needed this
So happy I could help!
I always type quite openly with my players but I’m also pretty good at picking up on what they want to do. Talk with your players and maybe have a couple things written down that they’re looking to do so that you can lean into that.
Exactly, it's all about knowing that everyone is on the same page
Well done with the DBZA reference
I have noticed a lot of toxic players demanding the DM know everything without any form of communication. The DM has a more difficult job then everyone else combined, so its the player's duty to At Least tell the DM what they want.
I agree with you on the main job of the GM. I create situations, the players bring their characters into those situations, and together we create a story that could never have existed without all of us. And of course there's a lot of little interactions and communications in and out of the game that affect this story. That's one of the reasons that I love being the GM. I get to give each player the story they want to experience, weave those disparate stories into the larger world that I've created, and give the characters together a larger story with adventure and mystery and fun NPCs and all the other cool things.
If there's one thing Fate does really well, it's allowing players to decide what happens to them when they roll.
Great video! This is an ever-present topic that I think is central to the philosophy of GMing and TTRPGs. I just saw another video where the players went completely bonkers and broke the campaign for a new DM, and it was really sad to see how rough it was for the DM. Unfortunately, that leads to DM/GM burnout or DM/GM doing shallow adventures without any prep to accommodate random desires of players. I think that your assumption about players running their characters like realistic people is a lynchpin that is not always so - in fact, the players who (often inspired by bucket shenanigans in Skyrim) most often break a campaign are TRYING to break and exploit it, and are NOT acting in realistic ways. Some DMs/GMs are fine with this and enjoy the challenge of constantly pivoting/adapting, and that's great. But ultimately there needs to be an honest and direct talk during Session Zero about what the limits of a campaign/game are, and the entire table needs to be willing to work together on that and, as you emphasize, build trust with each other. Thanks for contributing to this conversation - it'll always be an important one.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment! I completely agree that having an open and honest discussion during Session Zero is crucial in setting the expectations and boundaries of the game.
Whenever I make a character, I make the backstory build into the build. And I also make plot hooks, or potential plot hooks, for my DM to capitalize on. With each major point, I add 2-3 different ways he can use it in the future. If the DM latches onto an idea, I make it canon and we continue from there.
With this understanding, we know where my character will go. We know what the motivation is, either as I adventure, or once the plot hook is baiting us. I let the DM keep his surprises, but they don’t clash with my ideal for my personal story.
My first character was shared by _All Things DnD,_ the playlist is on my channel. I wanted my character to be slow to trust, but desperate to have friends. He was also kidnapped, sold into slavery, and used as a punching bag at the colosseum that bought him.
The DM made the latter into a campaign plot point, with the colosseum master as a character from another player’s past. But he capitalized on the former by giving my character PTSD after he finally regained confidence and trusted his party with his biggest secret, to end the very same session when that happened.
Really great advice, I'm gonna try to be more open with my more closed-up players on what they want from the story. It's easy enough to plan with the more open players, but not so with the ones who don't speak out a lot. I'm a big proponent of session 0 and every game should have it.
Though to add to the discussion, I wanna say that there has to be a balance between the story the players want and what the DM wants. There are those who forget that it's not only the players who are playing the game; the DM is *also* playing. So even if the players get the story they want, if the DM never gets to tell the story *they want*, they're now the ones at risk of getting disappointed with the game.
The DM should talk with the players about the game they want to run, and what direction, theme, genre, or objective they want the group to take the adventure in. I think there should be a GM-Player 30/70 or 40/60 split in telling the story, that way everybody's happy.
You bring up an important point about the role of the DM as a player in the game, and it's crucial that they also get to tell the story they want while still considering the desires of the players. The idea of a GM-Player split, such as 30/70 or 40/60, is a great suggestion for ensuring that both the players and the DM have a fulfilling experience in the game. Session 0 is a crucial tool for establishing this balance, and for ensuring that everyone is on the same page about what kind of story they want to create together.
yh I think the best way to build a narrative is to make the setup, have some thoughts on where it may go, but let the characters tell the story
This is why I want to learn to be a better DM, because I want to create a story driven around my players, with a central theme surrounding it. Build a story with them before even playing our first session. Of course I wouldn't work out any plot twists or surprises with them, but I would love to know what kind of game they want to play, what kind of character they want to play, and what they want to achieve with that character. You also state that players may find out later on that what they originally wanted out of their character may change. Well honestly that's like having an interpersonal character arc IRL. Continue talking to your players to work out where they feel their characters are now and to see if they still want to achieve what they originally wanted with their character, or if they have something different in mind. As always you've created another amazingly thought provoking video Jay! Keep up the great work! Oh and in case you were curious, I want my character to be a very strong and tough fighter that uses a series of moves to defeat his enemies. And his name is JOHN CENAAAA DOO DO DO DOOOOO!
Letting the players succeed, even on a failing roll, but at a cost reminds me of Blades in the Dark. That system has lots of ways to adjust the situation; you can improve your chances by lowering your expectations (or vice-versa), you can push yourself hard to add a die to a pool, but you can also accept what's called a "Devil's Bargain" where you explicitly agree to a cost in return for a better chance of succeeding. But then again, Blades in the Dark's success/failure is less of a binary and more about how much you can do and for what cost...
Hard agree! In DnD specifically, I've found it's really helpful to go back as a DM and read the flavor text in the PHB (or class source) of the class each pc starts with. It tells you a lot about the kind of archetype they could fit into, and inform how you write with those archetypes in mind (either to embrace or subvert).
Why I most of the time do spiral campaigns. Make a city and few things around the city or in it. From there, the characters build the story through choices and consequences. Good players give you quite a lot to pull from just from back stories and what not I find
Agreed!
Very interesting and I think will try that out. Fail but succeed with a cost.
The investment and attention of other players at the table are very important too. It's unfortunately too common for others at the table to want to immediately move on to either their own goals or an overarching threat rather than praise one of their party members for character growth. And what's worse is when the party *expects* a character, often the 'funny one' or the 'team mom' to remain the same. It's important to update the rest of the table what you want out of the game, not just the DM.
I am actually focusing on a PC-Driven campaign this time, having finally finished my own setting. At the moment I just have 2 players, we talk about how our characters are feeling outside of game and how my friends feel about the characters. I feel like I do a decent job of interpreting what they envision for their PC while keeping it fun and engaging. To me the key is to be kind but to also understand emotion and its complexity, understand how it can shift and mold someone and how every person has a different perspective on everything. Talk to your players if you want to focus on the narrative, try to find a middle ground that suits everyone and try to be kind, above all.
EDIT: We have also been doing sessions 0 between "chapters" of the campaign, every 20 sessions or so, where we meet and talk about goals and where we are going story wise!
Hey J! Love your content and it’s inspired me to try dming! I’m planning My first campaign currently, I’m confident in most aspects but what I’m most nervous about is encounter design. I can know what the party needs to do but I’m struggling to understand how to gauge what to challenge them with.
I’ve read from the book but I’m still unsure…any advice for designing challenging, but fair, encounters?
I mean I can throw 100 enemies at them but that’s not fun.
I can throw one supper duper tough enemy but that might also be unfun.
I’m not talking about a climactic set piece but more of: “bandits ambush you” how do I design that ambush in a interesting way?
Nice, Informative. TY.
I would explain that very differently, but the core issue at hand between character motivation and player interests indeed something that people do not always know how to bridge.
So am i crazy for this but... As a DM i dont let the dice determine failure as a whole, sure dice may cause you to fail that dex save but ultimately i dont let my players fail the overall objective because bad luck, if my players fail its because of their decisions leading up to something, like deciding to take on something over their head and known to be over their head. now not saying dice mean nothing to me because they are the core of how things get done, i just dont like to let randomness determine enjoyment of the game. even if a character dies i have a NPC show up that gives them the chance to come back to life at a cost and that cost can be any thing of importance to the character outside money.
idk if i explained that terribly but curious if im just an outlier here.
I'm currently playing a kensei monk in a Descent into Avernus game. A lot of devils are resistant to my attacks because they're non-magical. Until level 6 that is, where I get an ability that turns my attacks magical. When we got to hell at 5th level I warned the other players that for a short while I wouldn't be that effective in combat due to my non-magic. Not even half an hour into the session the DM threw a weird Deus Ex Machina at us that gave us a +1 sword.
I was so excited to roleplay my characters frustration with their ineffectiveness and then the awesome moment when they learn how to channel Ki into magic. And my DM took that from me because he didn't understand what I wanted
Without question, such a Deus ex machina moment sounds weird and lame. As a GM I can only say - tell them. Tell the GM what you want. If they don't know, then they can only do what they themselves think you want. If you tell your other players you're gonna be ineffective, it's probable the GM just wanted to help you feel less useless.
The problem I see is that with the tools provided by D&D and similar games character arcs are totally nonexistent. So you can do it but it is not even suggested in the playing material. Systems like pbta, cod, cypher among others have character arcs as part of their xp system making this upfront to the players and even given character growth incentives by xp points to do so
I prefer character-driven storytelling, and my campaign has lasted 8 years because of it. I would not have had enough material on my own to make it this far, but picking up what my players are putting down and running with it, planning events that play to their interests and backstories, letting them drive the direction of the plot, thinking of ways to complicate their ambitions, that's the stuff that makes players feel appreciated, feel ownership of the story, and keeps them coming back. Everyone is part of the creative process.
I have session 0 often, on game day 10,20,30,40 if playing weekly. Or the first 15 mins. Of every session.
Me the wannabe DM whenever our session 0 will happen.
"Aight, let's work together to make this work 🤜🤛"
Absolutely brilliant
Most Players don't have the ability to create a character with much depth.
Honestly, as a DM- I don’t have the ability to create NPCs with a lot of depth
@@Delmworks You have to worry about a whole world full of NPC's, they have to play one character. Complicated NPC's are overrated. They don't need that much depth, the game isn't about them.
It's amazing how a little communication can solve so many problems
Hey Jay
Hey! What's up?
@@PlayYourRole oh im excellent! You made a really interesting video that I shared with my dm!
Session Zero is great, I always check in throughout the game because the players/PC’s story goals can often change.
I just wish the story that my players wanted was more than "I am searching for magic items for some huge reason to my character that we will never actually get to because I am from the other side of the world for some reason and the campaign will never go there because everyone voted to start the campaign on this continent, and there is no main character in this game, so really I just want magic items, and I will also be sarcastic about literally everything you say, aren't I a good friend."
"BTW, where are my magic items?"
We've only played 2 sessions and you have done nothing. They are a ways off. Especially since we started at lvl 5 and everyone started with a couple of magic items anyways.
I roll the dice 🎲 and the dice are god. I just read the fate is all I do.
Ok, but in the scenario given, the DM has messed up. The player asked for their fighter to be humbled so they could go through an arc and the DM continued to kick his ass after that. Not saying the player shouldn't talk to them and explain what they want again but it would be a strange assumption for the DM to think the player wanted to be eternally the punching bag.
meh. I'm among those who say that what's important about a game, is the gameplay. The story is to enhance the gameplay experience, to provide agency for the gameplay.
Through this process the DM would push their personal feelings onto the players.
You set up the combat, if they win or lose is on them, how much the players invest in that again is on them.
If you are letting them win or setting it up for them to fail, you have failed as a DM.
Bad advice that sounds like good advice, this is a pretty consistent issue in this hobby.
Stop using dungeon master. That is trademarked by wotc
This was made before the OGL situation lmao I just finally actually managed to get it out
This is absolute baloney. It sounds like you have to plot and plan every aspect of the game. That NOT a game, that's a play. In a game, things happen randomly. Your version of this doesn't allow for that.