Your DM Should NEVER Say This
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 лип 2024
- Any dungeon master that uses these popular DND phrases is going to regret it later. Most DMs don't even know they're doing this but the rest of your tabletop gaming group will! Learn to immerse your players in a dungeons and dragons experience without meta gaming, bad roleplay, and discouraging words!
00:00 Intro
00:13 Catch Phrases in D&D
00:40 Are You Sure You Want To Do That?
03:44 Who's Keeping Watch?
05:48 What Was Supposed To Happen
07:00 What You Don't See Is...
09:32 Your Character Feels...
Amazon Affiliate Links:
D&D 5e Player's Handbook: amzn.to/45bIgri
D&D 5e Dungeon Master's Guide: amzn.to/4354U2I
D&D 5e Monster Manual: amzn.to/3BzTF6N
D&D 5e Xanathar's Guide to Everything: amzn.to/3BElOcU
D&D 5e Tasha's Cauldron of Everything: amzn.to/3WiEhVD
D&D 5e Monsters of the Multiverse: amzn.to/3BC5Rnh
Live Roleplay Dungeons and Dragons streams every Wednesday at 7:00PM CST!
Discord: / discord
Instagram: / constructed. .
Facebook: / constructedc. .
Patreon: / constructedchaos
Be sure to tell us what you think in the comments and please enjoy!
#constructedchaos #dnd #dungeonsanddragons - Розваги
man, mad props to you for using an example of your mistake and owning it completely not making excuses for it.
Thank ya!! I am not above making mistakes and I am more than happy to share them with the community so we can all grow together!
@@ConstructedChaos Why do hit points exist if the player characters aren't supposed to die?
@@mnmnrt already answered this in another thread. Sorry you seem so stuck on it!
“Good DMs describe emotion but great DMs create emotion” 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
💯💯💯
Great DMs create dungeons. D&D is a dungeon crawling game.
@@mnmnrt Weird… their website says it’s a table top role playing game.
@@ConstructedChaos Yes, the designers don't understand their own game. Thanks for joining us.
@@mnmnrt Ahhh, now I understand. Guess I’ll just delete this video and redo it then haha
I think the way Aabria DM's works wall in the contexts of a show, like they're describing more for the audience than the players (which I enjoy as a member of the audience) but I can see why it could be a problem in a DM to players context.
Yep! I absolutely agree with that sentiment!
@@ConstructedChaos Why do hit points exist if the player characters aren't supposed to die?
That Mulligan hack was a real nugget of wisdom.
He’s good for a lot of them! I love his DMing style-even if his campaigns aren’t my favorite.
@@ConstructedChaos Why do hit points exist if the player characters aren't supposed to die?
@@mnmnrt already answered this in another thread. Sorry you seem so stuck on it!
And I completely disagree. My players know that GMing is 99% improv. I have a _plan_ that never survives contact with my players. Sometimes, I tell them what I had planned, because what they did was _so much better._
This is an excellent anecdote and I completely agree with it. If anything, I feel like you might have misunderstood my point there--as a result of me not representing it well enough. I don't have a problem with improv so much as I have a problem with telling my players literally "what was supposed to happen"
If a player is going to do something idiotic, I'll generally just have them make an intelligence or lore check (depending on their skills). If they succeed, I'll give them relevant information that might help them understand that it's a bad idea or that serious consequences could follow. They still might choose to do it. I don't want to completely take away their agency. But at least now they're doing it with some awareness of what their character is going to face.
I've noticed that this is especially helpful for newbie players, who don't always understand what their characters can and can't do and the potential ramifications.
That's a great solution to the problem! Thanks for that insight!
I'm only halfway through, but I just need to say that I love everything being put out so far. Us DMs tend to always be concerned with what we can and should do, and not what we shouldn't. Fantastic advice!
Thanks so much!! I’m glad you’re enjoying these. I noticed this year that I didn’t have as much DMing content as I would like so I’ve been hitting the ground running in 2024!
Do Say: "how do you want to do it" + "you can sure try" +
Don't tell players:
- are you sure you want to do that?
- what was supposed to happen
- that they did the wrong thing, or that you intended for something different from them
- that that it was improvised / thoughtless
- who's keeping watch? Are you going there next? Do you close the door? ... IF something isn't stated, it doesn't happen.
- what you don't see is...
- how their characters feel before the big fight
You seem like you'd be a great player to have at the table with these detailed notes! Nicely done! haha
I love that you show live examples of what you do right and wrong. It makes your points feel more real bc we get to see it in action 😎
Of course! I’m more than happy to share this stuff as I learn from my own mistakes. Failure is the best teacher!
@@ConstructedChaos Why do hit points exist if the player characters aren't supposed to die?
Nah, fam... The "what you dont see is..." is INCREDIBLE! Im glad you reminded me of it... Im DEF doin that in a session REAL soon 🤷🏽♂️
Haha Like I said, it is a hot take but to each their own! Whatever keeps the good times rolling at your table!
How do they know it's happening if they can't see it?
@@mnmnrtIn that moment the DM isn't describing what happened to the characters, but rather the players. It's to expand the world. I think the technique can be used well, if applied sparingly. It has certainly worked at my table and has made players feel a sense of verisimilitude, because they know that NPCs are operating in the background and not just waiting around for them to be interacted with.
It's definitely something I wouldn't overuse, but it certainly isn't completely useless.
@@ebrahimnaeem757 If the characters don't experience something, you don't describe it.
One bad habit I have and I've been trying to break: Explaining an enemy's thought process while I am myself trying to figure it out. It gives the players information that they didn't ask for, and probably takes away from some of the drama; when I could instead be describing the enemy's movements or expressions on their faces to convey similar information without breaking the fourth wall.
I've definitely done that one myself! Good on you for being self aware!
We play *_GURPS,_* so, one of my favorites is "Roll low--or high. Either is good."
But, we had a game where the GM would say "Are you sure you want to do that?", when he knew it was going to be bad.
However, during that campaign, *_EVERY_* time the GM asked that, the answer was always "YES!"
We knew it was bad. The GM was making sure we had thought it through. But, we don't play D&D.
I want to put a small addendum onto the "What was supposed to happen" entry.
My players have always had a huge laugh whenever they have "outsmarted me" at the table, not in combat or in any game-breaking janky way but in say solving an encounter in a way I hadn't foreseen. Actually a common question directed to me after a session is "be honest, was that how that was supposed to go?" and I always sigh dramatically and make a big show of throwing away an entire page of notes to demonstrate the encounters and combats they managed to skip.
Of couse, just between you and me internet, sometimes that page of note paper is blank and I would actually have been taken off guard if they took the obvious path, but that's neither here nor there.
Haha that does sound like a good laugh and, I promise, that's happened to all of us many times over.
Why would I plan a way it's supposed to go? The story is just whatever the players do.
@mnmnrt because you can "plan" multiple possibilities so that you are ready to adjudicate certain situations. That doesn't mean its "supposed" to go that way
@@silifi No. There is no way it's supposed to go. Period.
@mnmnrt obviously you didn't read what I said
“Are you sure” is good when the party are definitely aware of the plan's flaws and what the risks are
Yeah it depends a lot on the party, mine is very fond of going head on into everything with little thoughts for the consequences so this allows the cooler heads to talk the others back to safety or at least a safer version of the original plan (or one that doesn’t take the entire party down with it)
That’s probably fair but I feel like that’s a pretty rare occurrence haha.
@@ConstructedChaos nah this is DnD, my party definetly is very rush first ask question later and the whole "are you sure you want to do that" rarely deters them, but sometimes it allows them to step back and think things a little bit first
if there were actually consequences in D&Dogshit and players had an expectation that they won't automatically win every fight and solve every problem this wouldn't be an issue
@@mnmnrt you certainly interact with D&D content an awful lot for someone that doesn’t like the game. Maybe you’re doing it wrong?
Yeah, I was going to say this exactly. I haven't seen her dm at all yet, I'd have to see it in practice to really get a feel for this technique, but it's definitely tricky to pull off, but only for the right groups
"Make a (is a good idea) check."
You’re not going to believe this but I just rolled on Google and got a nat 20 😂😂😂
@ConstructedChaos if something is dangerously dumb, I'll often give them an opportunity to "common sense" the action to get a little more perspective on the potential consequences. I won't tell than that's what they're rolling for, or in any way telling them they shouldn't do it. Just, "here's some information your character has that you might not," do as you will.
@@mamatthews78 fair enough! That makes sense!
literally just a wisdom ability check
The alternative mentioned to 'are you sure you want to do that?' is a very strong and good suggestion.
As far as meta questions though, I think there should be some leeway with just assuming players are being smart about some things. I've had DMs who will assume the least charitable MO for any situation that isn't explicitly stated. Nobody wants their characters to suddenly act incompetent just because the players didn't liberally describe every detail of their activity. If it feels like there should be consequence, maybe an in-world warning first works better; if you as the DM don't want the players to wake the dragon, but they're talking loud, have the dragon yawn so loudly it shakes the halls, rather than asking "are you guys whispering?"
When it comes to 'what was supposed to happen,' I think a better approach is sharing what contingencies you had to a single problem, and that can be fine to share if the players got the best or coolest possible outcome. It's better as a tool to let players know what smart choices they actually made, and how they avoided a problem.
I also feel like sharing that you improvised a lot isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as it still felt impactful. If anything, good improv just shows that you're capable of adapting, and that you know your world well enough to come up with something on the fly.
And with 'your character feels,' I think the only time it's appropriate is if it's some supernatural emotional force, e.g. something psionic, or like a dragon's fear aura, something that suggests the emotions aren't necessarily natural or their own, even. Otherwise, it kinda ties into the meta discussion; just like you don't want the DM suddenly deciding your character's incompetent, you don't want them suddenly deciding their mental state. Plus it's not hard to just break for a few seconds to ask a player how their character feels, and work it into a description.
All fair points, really! I mainly just disagree with your suggestion for "what was supposed to happen". I've learned the hard way that explaining all of that and giving players a peek behind the curtain removes a certain magical element from the session. But that is just my opinion!
@@ConstructedChaos yeah, you wouldn't wanna overshare either way. But like, in a CoS game I had, I had a few things I was tracking with the final fight, and certain elements would basically determine whether Irina would live or die. Since the party dealt with an NPC and had recruited the right allies, Irina not only survived, but was able to give the party an edge in the latter half of the fight. I shared a little bit because I wanted to make sure the players knew how much of an impact their actions and choices had, and it worked out for the better in that case.
@@Zedrinbot okay! I can definitely see the appeal there. I think that may be one step removed from what I was talking about in the video so I could come around to that!
As a first time DM (now appointed forever DM), I really struggle with divulging all the details post session with my players. I get so excited about learning how to DM and the experience as a whole that I often say too much. Over months, I have found a happy medium where I can explain some facets of play while keeping the mystique my players needed. For a bit there, it was sullying my players experience and I am so fortunate to have noticed. Thanks for the awesome video!
Glad you found that balance!! Happy adventuring! 😊
I don't mind the DM telling me what was supposed to happen if it's something that happened a long time ago. At that point it's more of a "what if" scenario, and I find it fun to think about.
I could totally see that being a fun discussion after some time has passed. Still, I wouldn’t risk it myself.
That's really hard for me when we're talking to keep it a secret... All the players talk about their plans and what they did, but a DM has to keep some kind of mystery and share too much.
@@ConstructedChaos Why do hit points exist if the player characters aren't supposed to die?
This video is really helpful and great! Thanks!
Thank YOU! I’m happy you found it useful!
This is first video i saw from you. I followed, because you are so right. Great points.
Thanks so much! I’m happy you found it helpful and welcome to the channel!
Wow! Good video! Subscribed
Thanks so much! I’m glad you found it helpful!
I see what you're saying with Abria's "What you don't see is..." approach. However, I have to disagree. One of my GM's has been using something very similar to that it it really has allowed us to interact with the narrative and experience it in ways we otherwise wouldn't have been able to.
The way he frames it actually works in our table, and I think it could work in other tables as well. I do concede that it IS a slippery slope, though.
Fair enough! I’m glad it’s working for you all and that you’re enjoying the adventure. That’s what it’s all about at the end of the day!
@@ConstructedChaosI'll try to give a more in-depth answer once a certain revised character proposal I'm working on is submitted (*ahem!*), but I wonder if Aabria's approach isn't specifically made for a streaming game? I know it's something I have never done during a home game in [redacted] years of GMing, but I've flirted with it on Darkeport simple to generate tension a la Hitchcock's theory of "the bomb under the table". Not sure if it's something I'll continue to use, but I can see the appeal for a blended show+game.
[Edit to add: And of course as soon as I press the "submit" button, I find the comment essentially saying the same thing... Oh well, more comments, something-something, more engagement. *laugh*]
Wonderful video, by the way - thanks for putting this gem out there!
I usually define the consequences of actions but sometimes players like chaos. Recently, my players tried to slip past a blind, magically enlarged, and hyper intelligent Bookworm, using a carpet to match its furry texture, and pretending to be a worm rubbing past, it could have gone wrong so many times, and then they decided to just come clean halfway instead of risking getting killed, luckily I always intended the worm to be a gentleman and they got nat 20 on a Persuasion check. The worm thought they were hilarious and became buddies with them over time. They don't want him to die. He may die.
Hahaha sounds like a tale ripped straight from the odyssey!
@@ConstructedChaos Funny that you say that, it's a Percy Jackson universe campaign.
@@paraschauhan1603 hahaha sounds about right then! I love that old mythology flavor!
"What you don't see" is a very powerful tool, but is meant to be use very carefully, and very rarely.
The goal is to, for a single moment in time, dissociate the players and the characters, and teasing something really bad that will happen.
It is especially good (and meant) for dramatic or tragic things, because the players are stressed it is coming but know their characters have no reason to act.
Another use is to share information that are not relevant plot-wise, but are emotional.
For example one of my players, because she plays a very faithful character, insisted on giving a proper burying to the ennemies they killed (some of them fled, and they were not fundamentally evil). So I used this sentence to say something along the lines of "what you don't see is that, few hours later into the night, their partners came to their graves to mourn.
That is fair enough but I also feel like there are better ways to deliver the same result to a character, not to the player. It just makes RP easier for the table since they aren't stuck worrying about what they know versus what their character knows.
I never watched critical role. My give away is a "uhhh, okayyy-" as I scamper the papers to find the table for self destructive behavior
Hahaha I definitely deploy my "uhhs" and "uhms" as soon as the players surprise me.
"Are you sure you want to do that?" is an important tool in a GMs toolbox. If the situation isn’t deadly, and even then it shouldn’t be used unless the idea is stupid, then in shouldn’t be used. The player wasn’t going to die, so there was no harm in it. If a player with a level 3 character wants to attack a Ancient Red Dragon that’s when you ask, "Are you sure you want to do that?"
How about changing, "Your character feels…" to asking how the character feels and then say, "yes" and then describe that in the context of the moment.
I can totally understand where you’re coming from but I think my example illustrates my point pretty well. In the first clip, there was no large danger but there certainly was in the second clip. My point is to give your player something to go off of instead of just implying that their idea is bad with no real feedback aside from that.
@@ConstructedChaos Right, that is true but there’s still a difference between in danger and going to die from stupidity. Like a 3rd level character would be destroyed by an ancient red dragon and the dragon wouldn’t even have to stand up. I’m basically talking about a Leroy Jenkins levels of stupidity. Where the only possible outcome from the action it the end of the character and likely the party, I mean hopefully the party would intervene but if I had a player so stupid and so insistent, even after I said, "are you sure you wan to do that?" and if they still wanted to attack that dragon. I’d let them and ask what the rest of the party wanted to do. Otherwise I would not say it. But outside of that your advice is really good.
@@brianrussell463 someone else did mention actions like that prompting an intelligence check of come kind to see if their character would know not to do that. That might be a nice alternative.
@@ConstructedChaos fair enough. But if they fail then what? Either way the outcome is the same as asking the question in question.
honestly, "you can certainly try" is a way of substituting "are you sure you wanna do this?". Because they can certainly try, even if it means death.
It's not as similar as you might think. "You can certainly try" implies that the intended check may be possible and doesn't at all discourage a player from doing so (at least in my experience).
@@ConstructedChaos yeah, that's why I think it's a good substitute. It won't hurt to warn the players that what they'te about to do is hella risky, be it directly by saying "I'll let you try it, but this can go really bad" or indirectly as you exemplified in the video, but at the end of the day all we're really doing is saying "you can certainly try, even if it means death". And I perdonally think that's alright. In my experience, when players take a very dangerous course of action and I just warn them that it's really risky, they usually try it anyway and when it goes bad they're like "well, I knew what I was going into, no use in complaining"
It all depends on the group and the tone and themes your using for the game. Careful use of any of these phrases is key.
Absolutely right! Every table is different!
@@ConstructedChaos I've used the "what you don't see/the camera fades in on a scene" in some superhero games or some noir games because I did really well to give it the feel of a comic book, but generally it's not great as a narrative device in your standard D&D game. I thin it works well for Aabria and the other DMs that tend to use it for steaming because it's worldbuilding/lore building for the audience more than the players I think.
I've rarely ever used "are you sure you want to do that" usually I just ask the player to confirm what they're doing regardless of how wild their action may or may not be, just so we're on the same page.
I don't ask who's keeping watch, I typically just ask if anything is being done to prepare for a long rest and if anyone is staying up so I can get perception rolls. Usually do this only because I know that over time there is usually a sort of "standard procedure" that the party has and I want to make sure in case they decide to change something.
The character "feeling" something I only do that if there's a mechanical reason behind it, like some magical influence or something that truly would be out of their control like some psychic impression on something. Even when I explain that a character might feel an emotion I never tell them HOW to react to it unless it is specifically spelled out in mechanics in some way. For example, some people react to fear with aggression instead of cowering, or if someone feels a sense of peace it might be totally uncomfortable for them and that's cool too, it impresses upon them that SOMETHING beyond them is causing this while still allowing full agency.
this is great , i haven't dm'd in more than 2 decades . i needed this info . 🤯 🥳
Oh wow! I know you are an avid player but I didn't realize it had been that long since you DM'd!
On the last point i would tell them what a normal person would feel, and from that they can decide how their character feels
Ohh that's a great idea! Thanks for sharing!
You need to find a player who when you ask "Are you sure about that?" or "Did you close the door behind you?" will respond "Yes." and "Nope!" repectively with a shit-eating grin.
Hahaha I have had that too!! I just don't think moments like that are worth the risk of shutting them down.
Fantastic videos 😊 thanks for using footage of your own mistake 😊
Of course! I'm always happy to learn from my own failures and share those learnings with all of you!
My table is WAYYYY too scatterbrained for the second one XD.
Without the party plan discussion or asking where they go next , they would not survive a week in any given setting
Hahaha fair enough! These suggestions are mostly based on my own experience, of course!
My players actually love being told they went off the expected rails its an achievement for them lol
Hahaha I think it is in a lot of groups! And there’s nothing wrong with that I don’t think. It’s more about telling them what was “supposed to happen” alternative to that.
The Are you sure you wanna do that advice is a double edged sword. as I have had players want to do things that If they do it can end in not a small funny haha, but character death. providing more information still makes them want to do their plan, and has completely killed their enjoyment when they realise what they have done is resulting in their character and in some really dangerous situations the entire party being knocked out or killed.
Exactly my experience as well! It's why I figure there's a better way to achieve the same thing with less risk.
I think the only time you as a DM when you can describe what a PC feels is when you got the frightened condition on them and then let them play from there.
That absolutely makes total sense!
I think being able to describe how they 'feel' is a legit thing. especially when confronting something that they've only heard about via npc or ancient tome or the like. cause there's a big difference between what you think things will be like vs what they are actually like. yeah that barb had heard of this great and terrible beastie and got excited about the glory and fame of making the big kill....and then actually seeing that thing in the flesh, an apex predator designed to do one thing really really well, hunt and kill. much like in the real world you see soldiers talking about how badass they are going to be when deployed...and then you see a lot that once they actually get in combat all that fame hunting and glory talk gets squished REAL fast. or perhaps change the wording slightly to invokes fear rather then makes you feel. and then you could even do a roll to see if initially seeing the ancient legendary monster you were so eager for a shot at in the flesh, and knowing that it's legendary for a reason, doesn't unnerve them a bit.
Def always enjoy the talk of tactics for DM responses, ignoring the whole "a dm should NEVER blank." Im vexxed on your reasoning and replacement suggestion for number one. You dont want to use it cuz a player may take it wrong snd lose enjoyment, i feel the replacement you suggested has the same draw back. A player could ass easily lose enjoyment from you asking them a essentially sarcastic question. Of course the door is stronger, so it still feels like your are telling them "you should probably think about this more."
Yet again your replacemnt suggestion is not bad, i just dont see it as realistically different if your main issue is that SOME players might react to it bad.
For the "your character feels" i like this for many reasons, but i think recently baldurs gate 3 showed how much intensity it can add. Also we as people arent in control of our emotions, some ppl might even say we have no free will control on our emotions. So the DM telling you you feel scared and then having to RP off that makes total sense.
First video i have seen, subbed, hoping to see more discourse.
Thanks for the input there! I'm still getting the hang of the posed question solution in stay of "are you sure you want to do that". In that example, I was a little snarky about it and I'd probably tone that down in the future. Overall, if making that change means 9/10 players enjoy my DMing rather than 7/10, I'm going to make that change.
I really liked this video in general, and while I don't necessarily disagree with your "How your character feels", I don't think it's a problem with the phrase as much the situation surrounding it. Describing the effects of a drug, you would let people know how they feel. Similarly as many campaigns are probably low level campaigns - I know that's my conjecture here - sometimes staring into the eyes of a demon (that should be, much larger) for the first time should instill fear. I can't imagine anyone describing D-Day and ships going to Normandy and and folks saying they didn't feel fear/nerves/anxiety of some sort. I feel like this narrative tool, of saying how things illicit certain responses is a useful to sometimes let certain powers be known in a foreshadowing sort of way. It's also a great segway into a potential saving throw, "The beautiful woman [succubus] makes you feel relaxed, and swooned as you relax on her couch, while you're at it I need you to make a charisma saving throw". I agree with your overarching point here though that we shouldn't put emotions in the mouths of our players. The shuddering of a spine, the dilation of eyes, and that cottonmouth from excitement are all things that I think the DM can narrate without taking the emotional agency out of a character. Thanks for hearing out my ted talk. I liked it enough to comment.
I absolutely agree! Thanks for this added insight on the issue. It's probably the trickiest one to nail down because we are so often required to toe the line as DMs.
the difference between aabria and most dms is that she is dm-ing for viewer entertainment. i believe "what you dont see is" is a very actual-play decision that she can get away with bc her players won't meta game
Yes! Exactly the point I was going for!
"Don't even roll."
Hmmmm I do think some situations don’t call for a roll. Specifically when the check would be undeniably easy!
@@ConstructedChaos I had a dm who would constantly tell us not to roll and just give us stuff. I'd rather get to roll my dice and fail, even if it's just a joke failure before the success! Sometimes he would ask for a roll then interrupt you mid dice roll to say stop!
Good advice
Thanks! I'm glad you found it helpful!
I love when a DM asks if I'm sure I wanna do something. Because I'm always going to say yes.
Hahaha good on ya!
Well, in the first example you misapplied the point of the phrase. It's not about them just having an idea that *might* go wrong, it's better used for one that absolutely will (as in the second example). In the first, you were giving a tacit judgement of the risk of her plan, without directly informing her of the risk, which makes it seem like her plan is just a bad idea (and often makes people feel dumb). In the second, you are informing her of a consequence she would likely be aware of were she really in the world. I think better than "Are you sure?" which is coy and vague, a DM just raising the possible risks and asking if they are aware of that gets things moving and is less vague. "Sure, you can do that, a spider is small enough to sneak in there. Keep in mind that if something goes wrong and you have to exit wildshape, you'll be in this guy's pants though." DM's are often worried about giving players too much info, but they are the only window into the world for these players trying to portray people actually there. Players are always operating at an informational deficit.
I disagree on the second question, to a point. I don't think you need to ask after every little thing, and it's sometimes better to ask a general question than a specific leading question ("How are you making your approach?" vs "Are you going in stealth?") but some of these questions are important for ease of play, and so everyone at the table is on the same page. If you go too far into "Nothing said, nothing happened" it can quickly lead to parties feeling penalized for not being in the head of the DM, and knowing what the DM was thinking, or other silly things like leaving the sword they dropped in combat three rooms back, even though they imagined picking it up, had plenty of time to do so, but never explicitly said they were doing it.
Again there's nothing wrong with telling the PC's about your expectation, particularly if they ask. Just don't be a prick about it. It's okay to have your expectations subverted, and it's okay to let your players know they subverted them. My parties constantly do things I did not expect, and I tell them all the time that was not how I thought things would go down. And we all get a laugh from it. Pointing out stuff they missed is only worthwhile when it's far enough in the past that it's no longer actionable or likely to make them feel dumb.
Huge disagree, the entire point of "What you don't see is..." is dramatic irony, the players know something their characters don't. You should never be using it while a scene or encounter is active, it's meant to show that other things are happening in the world than just what the PCs get up to, and offer a peek into something outside the PC's perspective. They can't roll, because it's not something happening while they are there. It's also usually used at the end of a session or an encounter, when something has ended, and to cue players about upcoming events so they can actually figure out how to roleplay them rather than have to be master improvisers on the spot. Your examples of how to do partial successes, or fail forwards, are great, but they have nothing to do with "What you don't see." It's a tool for drama, it could easily be replaced with "What you couldn't have known/seen is..." and the counter to leaving a trail of clues is that players can miss those, and then when the shape shifter that's been following them ambushes them and kills one of them, it feels like BS on the part of the DM. This way, even if they do miss the clues, their characters don't know what's going on, but they know to expect something, so they can match the tone. It's also better if what is shown in a WYDS is evocative, but not explicit. It hints at things, but doesn't provide direct information, unless that information is very distant from the PC's.
On the last one, it really depends on context. I will say this though: Your character at a table in a game is not just yours, it's also the DMs. Just as the story is a shared one, the cast is too, and there are parts of your character that the DM is responsible for. They tell you what you see, touch, taste, hear, whether those things are good or bad, they tell you what you know, and sometimes why. And sometimes, they tell you what you feel. You decide what to do with that information. A ghost causes a fear effect, your character is frightened, the DM tells you that's the case, tells you what the mechanics are, what it does to make you feel that way, you decide what that looks like. The DM tells you that the moans of the anguished spirits remind you of the moans of your parents who died of the plague, causing unbidden tears to sting your eyes. What kind of tears are they? Are they tears of grief, rage, just dust in your eye, you decide. It's a conversation, it's give and take. A DM shouldn't be telling you the conclusion of a feeling, but they can lay down the opening invitation, and then follow your lead. It's a potent tool, and thus should be used sparingly and with care, but it is a tool in the toolkit. (And it can facilitate roleplay for players who do not know exactly what their character is feeling, or when to inject that into play) You can also get a great deal of mileage out of saying, "I think X feels" or "Do you think X feels?" as openers to this kind of player DM interaction. (Mulligan uses those a lot, and when he throws down an emotional beat for his players, he's also very quick to pivot if they have a different take.)
Seems like we have a difference in perspective and opinion! That’s totally fine and I wish you well in all your adventures!
Yes. I am sure I want to do that. That's why I said I want to do it.
By all means then, good sir!
ah man, kinda disagree with the "who's keeping watch". Sometimes as a player I can feel nervous under a situation and might forget to inform the DM something that otherwise would be obvious for my character to do, and I'd feel a bit antagonized by the DM to be penalized without some kind of warning first. Like the example of the dragon you had, I probably would feel a bit annoyed to have our entire plan discarted because the DM simply assumed the characters were speaking out loud when the players could have assumed they were being quiet actually, but were too focused on the plan to realize they should have mentioned it. Feels like a "gotcha!" moment from the DM that I don't personally enjoy that much
I think a solution for this would be something similar to the "Are you sure you want to do that?". Like, instead of a direct question "Are you whispering?" maybe going for a more suble and general question: "How are you making this conversation?". So for the watch, I'd ask "How are you going to arrange for the night?" which may or not imply the watch, but also anything else they might want to do during this time period.
On the "What was Supposed to Happen" can be fun but depends on the table or situation. If it's something that feels like "we did the wrong thing" It kinda sucks yeah, but I personally find fun to learn I did something my DM wasn't expecting so they had to improvise, and now we have a hole new scenario that no one was expecting and woudn't exist if it weren't because of me. It's also fun to learn we just escaped a scenario that would be deadly or dire if it weren't for our shenanigans.
But I do agree a lot with the "What you don't see is" it always felt a bit awkard to give an information for the player their character wouldn't know. Aabria might know how to make it work, but she's also DMing for a livestream with professional actors that are not going to play out of their character. I really liked the idea of a "impartial success" to give some clues or to enhance drama. I know it kinda exists on other systems, but I might try doing it on DND!
I can totally see where you’re coming from with “who’s keeping watch”. I suppose it depends on the DM and the experience of the players. I’ve always had at least one experienced player at my table so it’s rare that they would go without keeping watch on a rest.
Further, a “gotcha” moment is only gonna come up if the DM does this disingenuously. The players and their characters are going to make mistakes. Sometimes you get jumped when you sleep on the side of the road.
I think a lot of this is based on the group and style of play. "Are you sure you want to do this?" is a good question for the player who normally thinks things through, but clearly your player was a little bit more whimsy based and so it was a poor choice. Keeping track of who's on watch is also very valid in survival campaigns. Also, "your character feels" can be useful for describing things that are done to them, though not if it's something the player is in full control of. A lot of it is in the context, so saying "NEVER DO THIS" isn't really helpful advice.
I totally agree on the "What you don't see is" thing though. That's immersion breaking no matter how you slice it.
I can totally see where you're coming from. I'll defend my positions here, though. You can achieve a better result by avoiding "are you sure" and replacing it with more evocative inquiries. Keeping track of watch can be valid but it isn't the DM's job to do so. The players should be making that known themselves. Telling a character how they feel in this context is definitely more nuanced but I detailed that in the video so I don't see the harm. Obviously, when you're under the effect of a spell or ability that DOES dictate their feelings, it makes sense. Otherwise, it should be avoided IMO.
I would personally have to disagree on the point of talking and sharing after a session, but as you state, every table is different.
I do think, however, that it is important for everybody at the table to have fun, and part of this is often discussing shared fun experiences.
But in general i guess i don't share missed content (because that stuff can, and should, be reused), but often discuss the solutions the players comes up with, their bad/good luck aso.
However i will add to the "each table is different" with something i state to any new group.
"Each gm you will ever play with is different, and will give you a different experience. If you don't like my style does not necessarily mean you don't like roleplaying, just that you might want a different gm. At the same note, if you like playing with me and change gm, you should not expect the same experience with them."
Ive had a few players that did not like my style, which is completely fair, but i would be sadended if someone where to give up on rp because of my style. I mostly do simulation style gm'ing, so the whole "Never say no" and "yes and" is not something i adhere to closely to. But anything in my world has logic and laws behind them, and they can be learned, understood and used. I seldom put solutions into the problems the players face, rather the logic and background of why there is a problem in the first place. And so far the players tend to find creative solutions to the problems, which i hope is as fun for them as it is for me.
On the whole "are you sure you want to do that?", i think its important to realize why one as a gm asks this. Either the player is fully aware of the situation, in which the answer might be a grin, with a "Oh im aware, but..." then adding to the gm's understanding of the intent. The other situation, and the real reason a GM would ask this, is if the player sees the situation differently than the GM. Here i personally like to say instead "Just to clarify..." and then add the information that i believe is lacking, or might have been overlooked. Without saying its a bad idea, and i often also do this if some action confuses me, so we are sure we are all on the same page. I havent gotten the impression that this is seen negatively, and while it does change the actions sometimes, often it doesnt.
A bit of a long comment, and mostly just me writing into the void, since i haven't gotten to play as often over the last year due to health, and misses RP in general. (About 1 year hiatus, and now every other week instead of 1-2 sessions a week). So if you got to this point, may your travels be never forgotten.
Thanks for sharing your input here! I absolutely agree that every table is different and I'm really only able to speak to my own experiences. That said, I still can't imagine a situation where explaining what happened behind the curtain wouldn't remove some of the magic inherent in the hobby.
Curious if you had a build for runechild sorc. I’m having a hard time figuring out what would multiclass with it well
I don't, really. Since it's technically homebrew, I haven't given it much attention.
I didn’t even realize that you made this change mid session. Excellent job
Thanks man! I’m always thinking thinky thoughts. 😂
As a Player, there are some thoughts I have regarding some of these topics.
- "Are You Sure You Want To Do That?" Hit the nail on its head. Sometimes as players, we don't imagine the world or situation quite the same way as the DM does and it can lead us to think that we could do something without being aware of risks that our PC would actually be aware of. That phrase is just too vague and making it light-hearted by pointing out what is the inherent problem that is overlooked is a great way to handle that.
- "Who's Keeping Watch?" This I have very mixed thoughts about. On the one hand, experiencing failure due to these things is a good way to really hammer in what to keep in mind, but on the other; does it really make sense for a party of even average intelligence adventurers to discuss their plan openly for their enemy to hear? Or to forget to keep watch in the middle of a dark forest? Not to throw my table or people with ADHD under the buss, but with my group there's 2 people with ADHD who are more or less the leaders of the table. They tend to act before thinking while I as an Autist ends up just overrun by their sheer energy, getting my character who might be a former military officer to end up in situations that make no sense my character to be in; causing conflict over the table. A DM is ultimately the person who is responsible for their table and having a DM do this when some players can get carried away is a win in my book. Doing otherwise would be self-sabotage imho.
- "What Was Supposed To Happen." Hard disagree. As a Player, my biggest joy comes from when I feel like I truly have done something to contribute to the collective story being told. If I learned that something my character did ended up causing an entire section to be complete improv, that is a massive win! Of course, there is a difference between being told that you "did the wrong thing" vs being told that the DM "did not anticipate that", with one clearly being a better approach than the other. That said, if that "wrong thing" prevented us from going into an unwinnable fight or some other situation that I or my PC would not actually want to be part of; I have played correctly and that feels great! I can only feel that when I get to know that that is the case.
- "What You Don't See Is..." This is a double-edged sword and one that I could see going in the reverse if you are not careful. If I fail a check and all I am told is that I see debris falling from a building, that's just going to get me suspicious and probably anxious of what my DM is doing to undermine my character (which happens far too much at my table). This causes my character to do stuff they shouldn't. If I as a player am told that my character is being stalked, that disappears and with my character failing the check, I know that he does not know about it and it then is on me to figure out whether it would be in character or not to ask if my character could do an Investigation check to try and put the clue together. After all, as a Player, my task in RP is to act out my character and that cannot be done if I do not know what my character knows vs doesn't. If I know my PC doesn't know of stalkers, it is far easier to have my PC act normal than it is to fight my own sense of worry that my character doesn't have. Knowledge is power.
- "Your Character Feels..." This I do somewhat agree with. My only real point of contention is that if a player has a condition applied to them such as Fright or Charmed, it makes perfect sense to describe what my character would feel. It's also okay for me to interject and say; "Actually, it's out of character for my PC to feel helpless. He would instead feel a lump in his throat, feeling like if he doesn't do what he plans to do right, things can go bad". Interjecting like this can cause problem though which is why it is a good idea for DMs and Players to hold dialogue so that DMs know what your PC's theme is vs isn't. When no conditions are applied, I think it is more so appropriate for DMs to ask what the PCs are feeling so that Players get a chance to express that instead of the DM doing so for us. Depending on how this is done, the DM can then take that into consideration as they further narrate the scene. If they then narrate the scene in a way that I as a player feel like my DM has captured the essence of what my character is about, then I feel heard and that my DM gets it which is rewarding. That is a time where it would be appropriate for them to describe my character's feeling outside of applied conditions.
You make some great points here! I’ve never had a good experience with “what was supposed to happen” so I didn’t imagine it was possible but I suppose it could be!
There shouldn't be a "wrong thing". At all.
With regards to the "Your character feels..." - To summarize; it's fair (probably encouraged) to describe *sensory* feels but the realm of a character's emotional response is the purview of the player.
This gets sticky at times - I had an Aboleth dominate a player once so I described at as " feeling trapped in your mind" (allowed the player to view dominated actions as a mental audience) - a metaphysical description but does not imply an emotional response. Some could argue the use of the word "trapped" informs or leads the player though.. Again, gets sticky at times.
Absolutely, that's probably the trickiest one on the list to master because it requires that we toe the line so often.
this is beautiful. it separates a good and great DM. fantastic job, man.
Thank you! I’m so happy you enjoyed it and that it’s being well-received!
I have a question that relates to the section about "whos keeping watch". I often ask my players "what order are you moving in?" when moving through hostile territory (largely because they are currently watching 2 children). Should is stray away from this pattern?
I think that’s a little different because they would assumedly be moving in an order. However, they might not be taking watch. Does that make sense?
Like, at that point you’d be clarifying rather than implying.
@@ConstructedChaos That makes total sense. My followup question is what if they aren't quite sure the territory is hostile and aren't paying much attention. In that scenario by asking them the order, they will realize this and make plans or approach the situation differently now that i've essentially "given away" the hostility of the area. Thanks!
@@jemtaylor3738 great question! I ask for marching order often enough that my players don’t seem to think much of it-even sometimes when nothing happens. Specifically, I often assume whoever is guiding the party (via a survival check through a town or dungeon) is leading.
The Legendary Whatever!? Man, that dude has ruined SO many campaigns just runnin' his mouth...
Ahhhh sorry about the spoilers!
Agreed
🫡
Did Matt mercer shhhhh someone!? Im not totally caught up to critical role. The thumbnail implies he did
Rest assured, he did not shush anyone to my knowledge. The thumbnail is meant to imply that there are certain phrases said on popular dnd streams like critical role that should not be said at your table.
I'm just glad the term "Thacko" THAC0 is long gone.
Hahah I never had to deal with it personally but I’ve heard the horror stories 😂
Why? You just subtract AC from your THAC0 and roll equal or greater on the dice to hit. It's no more or fewer steps than adding attack bonus to hit AC.
I agree that Abria is a great person
But personally I really don’t like watching her DM
That’s totally valid!
Yeah, let's just let the guys blame you for stupid behavior that their character would know better than to do. And nobody said you can't say "No" to your players. Ideally you'd use both.
Where did I say that players can blame the DM for stupid decisions their character makes? And I didn't say you *couldn't* say "no". I said it was tabu. Those are two different things. Tabu means that it is under a social prohibition--meaning most people believe that you shouldn't do that.
@@ConstructedChaos Taboo literaly means "Forbidden."
@@AngelusNielson forbidden OR what I said. Ironically we’re both right haha. But, as the creator of the video, I’m telling you what I meant in the context of the video.
Might have subbed or liked the video if you'd presented it as general TTRPG content- Since you didn't, I won't.
No worries! TTRPGs are what I love but DND still has the largest market within that space. Unfortunately, I can't keep the lights on by spreading myself across multiple TTRPGs. Anyway, happy adventuring to ya--no matter what system you play!
@@ConstructedChaosTotally get you! Either way, comments are positive, yeah?
@@MikeLemmons Yep, absolutely. And I always make sure to respond to every one of them!
I don't really get the problem with the druid's plan. If she expanded back to full size, obviously that would just destroy the guy's clothes. It's not like she would take any further damage.
In that scenario, they were in a pretty dangerous location and an action like that would have surely sparked a tough combat.
@@ConstructedChaos so a good outcome then
@@mnmnrt absolutely. TPKs are my favorite!
@@ConstructedChaos They should be.
@@mnmnrt yes I love it when my players have a terrible time at the table
Lol... both ways: "Are you sure you want to do that?" or "Which is better A or B?" are a passive-aggressive way of making a player feel stupid. Look I'll do it to you.
1) Are you sure you want to make this kind of video?
2) Well, which do you think is better as a DM, letting a player do whatever they want, or... (what you suggest) giving a false forced comparison of good vs bad options?
Can people stop telling other people how they shouldn't play?! Play however you wish people and whatever works for you and YOUR group is correct, even if you (so what) mess up the rules. Because you learn with your group. This channel is ridiculous.
Unironically, I prefer the second option lol
You also need to take into account that your genders as you say "Are you sure you wanna do that?", it can come of as very mansplainy.
I'll try to keep that in mind! Of course, you can probably find that sort of misogyny within most DM/player interactions since the DM does speak from a place of authority. I would posit that it doesn't matter what gender you interact with at the table--so long as everyone is happy and no one is being treated unequally.
While I appreciate the sentiment, I will stand up for Alex here and say that he wasn’t mansplaining and I didn’t take it as such 😊
Ya earned a dislike for the thumbnail. Unless you have an issue with what a person says, don't make a thumbnail silencing them just for clickbait.
Thanks for the dislike and the comment. I do have an issue with Matt Mercer's "Are you sure you want to do that" but you probably didn't watch the video haha.
@@ConstructedChaos Having just rewatched that bit, I don’t think you made it clear that was a Mercer-ism. You just said it was from “shows like Critical Role,” which could be easily taken as “any live session ttrpg podcast show.”
As someone who doesn’t watch Critical Role, I had no idea that was from Matt specifically until you mentioned it in this comment. So “I guess you didn’t watch the video” feels a little disingenuous.
I loved the video by the way, but this comment seems kinda passive aggressive and for no reason.
@@joshdaymusiced I feel I made it plenty clear. And if not, I’m doing so now. Feel free to dislike the video if you want. My ratio on the backend is like 98% likes so I don’t think it’s a problem. 🤷🏻♂️
@@ConstructedChaos I didn’t leave a dislike though. I said I enjoyed the video. I’m just trying to say that you’re coming across pretty defensive, and that it wasn’t as obvious in the video itself as you may think.
Think about how puzzles works as a DM. You already know the answer, so to you, the solution is obvious. But the players don’t have that hindsight, so it’s a lot less obvious to them.
In this case, you knew who you were talking about, but since you were not explicit with Mercer the way you were about Aabria, you can’t expect your audience to think the way you do.
Edit: for the record, I didn’t think twice about the thumbnail. This is just in reaction to your comment.
@@joshdaymusiced I appreciate the insight. Thank you! But, when someone comes at me sideways like that, I’m liable to defend myself. If it seemed defensive, it’s because it was!
Sometimes it's not their fun dissolving because the player has been creatively shut down, sometimes it's the realization that their idea was actually fucking garbage and they didn't fully think things through before saying it out loud.
In certain situations it's better to let a player know that they're about to do something stupid that'll get them killed and have them be disappointed for 5 minutes rather than not warning them and watch them kill their own character and have them be upset for 2 weeks.
And also before anyone comes at me with player agency: It is okay to sometimes warn players about risky moves. These characters are seasoned adventurers with tons of experience and a "danger sense" so to speak, that many players at the table will not have because they're living a pretty comfy actually and never faced anything more dangerous than a grumpy dog. Also sometimes the amount of danger a situation represents can be misunderstood by a player at the table, so making them aware that something could immediately end their life if things went wrong when their character is able to assess the situation, is also a valid thing to do as a GM.
I can see where you're coming from! My point is that it is possible to warn them and get the same desired result without making them feel bad about it!
Nah abria sucks
Haha I wouldn’t go that far but everyone is entitled to their own opinion!!