I struggled with lea'zel personality at the start until someone pointed out how kind she was acting considering her culture and how she is scared. She was kidnapped by the worst monster she knows, infected with the most horrifying death for anyone of her culture could have of and stranded on hostile word with only her teachings to guide her. and despite that she broke protocol to try and do right by the party to help them to a cure. it doesn't excuse her behavior but she is trying to do the right thing in her rude and abrasive way.
Regarding the traitor business all I can guess is perhaps it was a late addition in development to ultimately give the player a way to keep Lae'zel in the party even if they refuse to give into the Githyanki, as you've done, but either the devs ran out of time to fully implement it or because of it being a necessary addition found only during testing it wasn't made an actual quest. It's a shame Shadowheart wasn't here for this section (another downside of a limit to 4 in the party) and I wonder how it would change without Lae'zel present. Similar to the previous 2 videos I feel a shortcoming to BG3 is not giving the player options even when they aren't options (impossible to actually succeed on). A good DM will let players do most anything, though with consequence to that action, and part of being a good DM is knowing when to fudge the dice without letting the players know (make skill checks that are impossible to beat so desired outcomes still happen; have the dice show mercy when the party is in a bad way; etc). Instead of letting the player know exactly what is needed to succeed on a skill check I think it would have been better to use something like a scale (example Trivial to mean 5, Easy to mean 10, Average 15, Challenging 20, etc up to Impossible) and throw in some situations where it's impossible to determine the check but that still allow the player the option of attempting it, especially if it's a conversation check.
That all makes sense. Slight tangent, connected to what you've said; whenever I try and set an impossible DC for parties I'm DMing they usually end up rolling 18+ and they just feel cheated when I say that they still fail, or nothing happens, etc. Any advice?
@@Gar1onTabletop I'm probably not a good person to answer this as I'm sure you have far more experience DMing than I do (and the times I have DMed they've been already made scenarios that I've read out of a book. Though a few years ago I did plan to make a short campaign that lasted 3-4 sessions based on a book but I could never figure out how to adapt the end of the book since a major antagonist wouldn't be present in the campaign). To some degree I'd say it depends on the party's level but even at say level 10 players are likely to have between +5 and +8 in any proficient skills (even higher with expertise skills) meaning a 50/50 chance on an average to slightly difficult check if they're proficient in it. I'm not sure what to suggest as contested rolls with npcs can sometimes have a lot of luck to them if the npc rolls well (as an example in the long campaign I was in at one point my cleric was grappled by a non-hostile high level npc in an anti-magic field and even though I rolled 23 I couldn't break free) and there are just going to be instances when players are likely to encounter a very difficult or impossible DC (like a vault door or chest with an arcane lock or trying to do a persuasion or other charisma check on a high level npc or CR being). Sometimes player creativity can overcome failing or nothing happening. Some times it's just how the dice roll.
what i do it i say how they succeed in not making it worse but ultimately fail. for example pointing out that the manage to avoid something very bad or manage to lessen a bad thing. Personally if they can't succeed i often don't allow a check and say it's outside their knowledge/capability. If they still want to try i allow them to do so but any check they make will result in failure and instead of success if they roll high, i discribe the consequence if they roll low. for example if it's about convincing someone i point out persuasion/deception isn't mind control and they can't change a person that fundamentally dissagrees. but by rolling high they managed to not offend them and make them understand your point of view, yet they still don't agree for personal reasons.
I struggled with lea'zel personality at the start until someone pointed out how kind she was acting considering her culture and how she is scared. She was kidnapped by the worst monster she knows, infected with the most horrifying death for anyone of her culture could have of and stranded on hostile word with only her teachings to guide her. and despite that she broke protocol to try and do right by the party to help them to a cure. it doesn't excuse her behavior but she is trying to do the right thing in her rude and abrasive way.
Regarding the traitor business all I can guess is perhaps it was a late addition in development to ultimately give the player a way to keep Lae'zel in the party even if they refuse to give into the Githyanki, as you've done, but either the devs ran out of time to fully implement it or because of it being a necessary addition found only during testing it wasn't made an actual quest. It's a shame Shadowheart wasn't here for this section (another downside of a limit to 4 in the party) and I wonder how it would change without Lae'zel present.
Similar to the previous 2 videos I feel a shortcoming to BG3 is not giving the player options even when they aren't options (impossible to actually succeed on). A good DM will let players do most anything, though with consequence to that action, and part of being a good DM is knowing when to fudge the dice without letting the players know (make skill checks that are impossible to beat so desired outcomes still happen; have the dice show mercy when the party is in a bad way; etc). Instead of letting the player know exactly what is needed to succeed on a skill check I think it would have been better to use something like a scale (example Trivial to mean 5, Easy to mean 10, Average 15, Challenging 20, etc up to Impossible) and throw in some situations where it's impossible to determine the check but that still allow the player the option of attempting it, especially if it's a conversation check.
That all makes sense.
Slight tangent, connected to what you've said; whenever I try and set an impossible DC for parties I'm DMing they usually end up rolling 18+ and they just feel cheated when I say that they still fail, or nothing happens, etc. Any advice?
@@Gar1onTabletop I'm probably not a good person to answer this as I'm sure you have far more experience DMing than I do (and the times I have DMed they've been already made scenarios that I've read out of a book. Though a few years ago I did plan to make a short campaign that lasted 3-4 sessions based on a book but I could never figure out how to adapt the end of the book since a major antagonist wouldn't be present in the campaign).
To some degree I'd say it depends on the party's level but even at say level 10 players are likely to have between +5 and +8 in any proficient skills (even higher with expertise skills) meaning a 50/50 chance on an average to slightly difficult check if they're proficient in it. I'm not sure what to suggest as contested rolls with npcs can sometimes have a lot of luck to them if the npc rolls well (as an example in the long campaign I was in at one point my cleric was grappled by a non-hostile high level npc in an anti-magic field and even though I rolled 23 I couldn't break free) and there are just going to be instances when players are likely to encounter a very difficult or impossible DC (like a vault door or chest with an arcane lock or trying to do a persuasion or other charisma check on a high level npc or CR being). Sometimes player creativity can overcome failing or nothing happening. Some times it's just how the dice roll.
what i do it i say how they succeed in not making it worse but ultimately fail. for example pointing out that the manage to avoid something very bad or manage to lessen a bad thing.
Personally if they can't succeed i often don't allow a check and say it's outside their knowledge/capability. If they still want to try i allow them to do so but any check they make will result in failure and instead of success if they roll high, i discribe the consequence if they roll low. for example if it's about convincing someone i point out persuasion/deception isn't mind control and they can't change a person that fundamentally dissagrees. but by rolling high they managed to not offend them and make them understand your point of view, yet they still don't agree for personal reasons.