That’s actually a major theme in my DMs current game. My character is the first person recorded history to make a deal with a primordial, another player had to deal with a mysterious entity called the Regent of Dreams after her soul was corrupted, another player made a deal with an ancient undead wizard to learn from him (the wizard body swapped him later when that character died), and of course our Warlock who started as a Druid but fell into the service of a Kraken-Spirit thing. Lots of deals!
And in a previous game, one of my players (same player as one of the now-vampire spawn) made a deal with a devil which changed his creature type to be part-fiend. So he paid a wizard to cast Nystul's Magic Aura on him every day for a month to make him identify as an ooze to any detection magic.
Oooh Have I. my longest game, in World of Darkness my character wound up having to sell her name/herself not only to A fey but The True Fey, the lord of fey. I loved that arc, she came to become a talented Sin Eater with Fey touched powers. The moment were she gave herself because there was a crazy situation that they caused was one of my favourite roleplay moments.
I was in a game with a fey wanderer ranger who made a deal with an archfey that had beef with the other archfey. In that same game I made a deal with Bhaal as I converted to him under the party clerics aid.
Oh, I see the Scanlan portrait a different way. He was asked to draw the party as ridiculous as possible, and what could possibly be more ridiculous than Scanlan exactly as he is?
Oh see knowing how things go ive always interpreted this as the seed for his feelings of not belonging or actually being part of the group. Kind of in the same spirit of “you dont kill the dog” in a movie. Its just too malicious to kill something so adorable and ultimately unimportant.
If nothing else: it's good to remember that even GMs like Matt have off days. I'll keep that in mind next time I end a session and feel like "Oh man, that was not my best. I feel really bad that I was so off my game."
Yeah, this was my first reaction even three or four minutes into the video -- I almost came down here right then to comment about it. But I did end up agreeing with some of the later points made. It's not all that fun to feel directionless... and hey, there are actual studies they've done to prove that having a direction of some kind, *any* kind, leads to greater creativity. Still, if there's any place where the typical directions would be lacking, it *would* be the Feywild -- so it still, to me, felt like a decent decision for a gaming group, though perhaps not specifically for a group doing live gaming with a time limit and an infrequent player at the table and all. Also, things to interact with? I heard "trees" and "grass" and "pools"; I think I'd start with looking into the pools, if nothing else. Perhaps studying the wildlife; if Keyleth, then talk to the trees. Or if I were in a hurry as a player, I'd try for Perception and then Survival to try to orient (and find out just how weird the place is, if my typical Survival skill fails at useful data there). I'd also suspect that the plant life would be unlike normal mundane plant life, and that things are never as they seem, so I'd be moving more cautiously, and on alert for the point at which "Curiosity killed the cast" -- moments where it would've been better *not* to examine a thing too closely. I'd also recommend to the group that the team stick closer together than in other environments, because it's possible the physical reality doesn't operate under the same standards as in the mundane world. Perhaps getting separated for a few minutes would leave them days apart. So it feels like there's actually a lot of possible things to do, that a player like me (a Spade who enjoys scavenging/survival games) would have picked up on and started trying, even if this particular group didn't run with it until they were given a concrete GM-directed goal. ...then again, could also have taken a page from some of the old-school text adventures, and set up *too many* interesting things -- one in each cardinal direction, equally tempting, each with its own pitfalls, and let the team argue about where to go first...
Another way to look at the Scalan picture being true to life is that he already looks ridiculous, so the Fae draws him normal. Playing off that vanity, 'why does everyone else look ridiculous, but I look normal. Do i look stupid all the time?'
11:17 One of my favourite pieces of game design advice comes from Soren Johnson, lead designer of Civilization IV, who wrote, “Given the opportunity, players will optimise the fun out of a game.”
Although for TTRPGs I'd note it definitely depends on the player. Some players like having their characters make terrible decisions that are going to go bad for their character, either because it makes sense in genre or because it's going to be fun to play through.
Brennan Lee Mulligan said basically, that a player might not enjoy it, but in most cases, they will make their character act to fulfill their personal goals as soon and as easy as possible, making a straight line to their personal objective and ignore everything else, even if the player knows, that they would like the skipped content. So, even if it might seem contrived, most players eventually are thankful for needlessly complex paths to the end of the adventure as long as they give them an excuse to enjoy the game without breaking the immersion of their character. Like a winding river that wants to go straight from the mountains to the ocean but has to take a winding path due to terrain (i.e. the obstacles the GM places in front of them). Therefor it helps, as a GM, to plan the end of the campaign, then place obstacles before this end until you think, it will take long enough to get there and only then really start to flesh out, how these obstacles actually work and how to interact with them. You want to kill the lich. To kill the lich, you have to find the phylactery. To find the phylactery, you have to ask the lich's old apprentice for its location. The apprentice is long dead, so in order to ask them, you have to find a way to reach them. In order to reach them, you have to find the corpse. In order to find the corpse, you have to... And so on. Even if the lich itself might be not that hard to actually defeat, the journey to this confrontation is what will stick with the players (though a good final encounter will help).
@@SomethingWellesian Mm, and my experiences tend to be with folk from less optimization oriented games. I'm in a PF2e group as well, but... Lately most of my gaming has been with an RPG book club that formed on a Wanderhome fan discord, meaning we probably take something of that energy that comes from at least being open to GMless storygames, and apply it to games that might otherwise invite more optimization oriented gameplay. That's my excuse for my character taking the in retrospect very dubious berry a rat offered and eating it in a game of Heart and I'm sticking to it. (Not even the most dubious thing my character ate that game)
“This scene also just makes the players laugh, and that’s still valuable.” 100%! I know, different tables, different expectations, but this is a game. Having random silly fun moments is always welcome for me.
Nymphs did this back in AD&D, I think. But the idea is the most important thing, you can just assign a save DC yourself. I'd go with either Wisdom or Constitution and set it between 15 and 18.
Blinding Beauty. If a humanoid starts its turn within 30 feet of the nymph and can see it, she can force the creature to make a DC 15 Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, the creature is magically blinded. The target can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success. A humanoid that isn’t surprised can avert their eyes.........but no repeat saves from matt
Scanlan being the only unchanged one also hit's in one other way. He's seen as such a parody of decency that he is an insult to himself. What better insult to Scanlan than to show that there's no better way to insult him than to present him as is.
The big difference with the way Taliesin "sometimes" meta games and the unnamed former player is that Taliesin does it so the players can win, the other guy did it so HE could win.
@@madelyn1758 Interestingly, Laura had already played a version of Jester at this point in a one-shot, and even then she worshiped a god called the Traveler!
@@OccidentalAvianthat’s because the traveler is a listed god in one of the d&d original pantheons, and was made into Artagan in Exandria to suit Jester’s story. Can’t wait to hear his new legally distinct title in the MN animated series lol
Normally I agree with what you say Mike (apparently we have similar dm minds!) but in my opinion I love how Matt started this session. Players should be absolutely lost teleporting into the feywild…it’s the feywild, you’re supposed to be lost if you aren’t from there.
I cant help wondering if he was aiming to give his players a moment or two's feeling of disorientation. They have just landed in a different dimentsion - the feywild of all places - having them overwhelmed by pretty detail with no clear idea of where to go or what to do is a pretty apt way for someone to feel who has just landed in the fewild! Making getting your bearings or getting any sense of being back on task a challenge is a very good way to express such a wild magical and chaotic plane of existence.
@@wolfyblackknight8321 I guess spoilers for campaign 2: With who garmelie really is, and with jester's *peculiar* relationship with said person, the tiny dick drawings must've been a key concept when Laura first made jester.
Man, don't know why but the first lesson of this video is really hitting home with me. It explains a lot of the times when as a player, I just had no idea what to do. And it's something I really want to focus on in the future whenever I DM
Just wanna say dude, this series is genuinely my biggest comfort series on UA-cam ATM. I'm a massive fan of DnD and critical role but I simply do not have the attention span to concentrate on a 3+ hour dnd session. These videos make the plots of the episodes so digestable and I am so dang thankful for it
I'm in a similar boat with ADHD brain, and what I've found is that it's better if I can cut it up into reasonable chunks in some fashion. Technique 1: Watch the first hour or so (on 1.25 speed) while donating blood plasma, then watch the other 2/3 at home (since brain is already invested). Technique 2: Play a phone game while listening to the play session, and when a particularly interesting moment hits, back up and pay attention to the screen; when it gets back to hard to focus on, go back to phone game. Technique 3: Watch it on 1.5 speed, locate key moments, record just those key moments, then move on (possibly combined with Technique 2). Then I've got a little library of my favorite moments from the episode, and it helps me get through the episode itself because I'm not focusing on the entire thing in linear time... and I can enjoy the good moments repeatedly without having to re-locate them. Having this series to help me pin down which episodes are worth this much investment, and which specific moments to watch for, certainly helps.
I think Matt's opening was intended for characters to poke around at random to get a feel for the Feywild. Keyleth picking the flower was what Matt wanted. He want them to look around and interact without immediate intent. This was supposed to be a free beat to establish the new world. This is a case where I think the DM can tell the players that their characters would be feeling curious about their surroundings. To give the players permission to have fun with their arrival in a new world and experiment.
If I recall correctly Percy never fired any of his guns since arriving in the Feywild. Then the fact that Garmelie drew Percy pointing his guns at his own head means that Artagan already knew what a gun is, and how it works.
Something I learned both from playing and DMing is always make sure the players have some sort of goal, some concrete idea of what their next step should be. It's not fun as a player if you feel completely lost, and its difficult to DM because they might do totally wild shit you didn't prepare for.
The first part about Matt’s narration actually reminds me of a really formative video I watched called “D&D Exploration SUCKS. This is why.” By a creator called Deficient Master. They demonstrated a technique for exploration that I now use for many parts in my session prep.
I don't remember which episode it's in, but there's a callback to the theater bit a few episodes hence that I Iove. MATT: You run into something. LIAM: Is it a theater? MATT: It is a wall. LIAM: Is it the wall of a theater?
Given the stuff later, I always assumed that the Scanlan portrait was the joke...looking just like he is to everyone else... but that's not how he see's himself. Hence...y'know...what happens later...
I'm just imagining taliesin at the end of this session going 'that was a really strong scene between vex and percy, we're going to have a live show next session, I wonder if there's any way to combine these two...' Can't wait for the next episode of this, one of my favourite C1 episodes
I like when you call out bad GM things from Mercer. This is an easy trap to fall into as a DM emulating Mercer: have cool and evocative narration but forget to include any actual useful game info
I dont have the best memory, so one of the things i like most about this series is how i can re-experience the story all over again. I do remember the percy/vex moment that happens next ep though and i am very excited for it :)
I started watching Mighty Nein recently! I noticed in episode 4 that Ashley came back to the session and pretty much did nothing of note through the entire episode, only to leave again at the end. I've only watched Campaign 3 where Ashley is there the whole time, so I don't know if this is the norm. But I feel a little bad for her! It took a while for Matt to reintroduce her to the group, only for her to not have anything to do the entire time, just to leave again at the end. Is this something that happens in Campaign 1 a lot?
Yeah, I feel like it does. I mean, I'm sure there are plenty of episodes where every other player gets to do nothing for three hours. This isn't that big of a problem, though. They'll have enough time in the spotlight next episode. Now Ashley, she may not be there next episode, so this really sucks. But I wouldn't blame Matt. It's really difficult to spotlight a character who's barely ever at the table.
So to answer your question. In Campaign 1 and most of Campaign 2. Ashley was doing a show in New York called Blindspot. So, she was in and out for most of that time. So, while I do think that a lot of the reason why Ashley's characters weren't really featured in any meaningful way, that's also not really Matt or Ashley's fault. With that being said, since I really kind of stopped watching at early Campaign 3, I don't actually know if this continues other than the fact that Blindspot ended mid Campaign 2. As far as the other players are concerned, sometimes the other players do spin their wheels on occasion, for a number of reasons. 1.) They want to wait for Ashley to come back. 2.) Too much planning, not enough action. 3.) Genuinely not knowing what to do. 4.) Too many sidequests, little sense of urgency. 5.) Matt typically doesn't push the players into any direction until he absolutely has to.
@@MushyUndTinglyI agree. It’s an unintended conseconsequence of Blindspot being filmed on the complete other side of the country. If it was filmed in California instead of New York it might be less of an issue and Ashley could play more in C1 and C2 But no in C3 she’s still back permanently. Only not being physically at the table when she’s ill or out of town but even then she still plays
It's at least a little understandable. The party had a relatively clear objective and they teleported to the feywild intentionally. I don't think it's super unreasonable as the GM to sit back for a bit and SEE what your large cast of extremely powerful characters (and creative players) do to figure out how to get to their goal. Do they cast a finding spell, does someone have the right skills or background? Are they just going to march off? It feels like he was waiting for them to make their move towards the goal (finding the Vestige), but instead they just got lost in the scenery, and that maybe caught him off guard? Not a complete excuse but I could see myself being just as disoriented as a GM, wondering why they came here with no plan despite ample downtime.
In that regard it feels a bit like the Slayers' Take trials: It's not just about killing the beast, it's about actually taking the steps to find it in the first place. Go forth and prove you're competent, or fail! I mean they have skills (Survival) and spells (various) whereby to get some sense of direction, it's not like the GM has to specifically point out that there's a nearby Point of Interest.
I absolutely love Matt's style, but this sort of touches on one thing about his style of DMing that drives me nuts. He asks for Perception checks in order to SEE. The check is supposed to be reserved for noticing minor details and hidden things. But for Matt, it's like... you're rolling Perception to see if the thing you're looking for is THERE. And if you succeed, it... appears? If not, it's not there. For someone who is so great and has such a good command over the feel of his games, that one thing always seems really weird to me. Asking for Perception checks in order to look around and just SEE things is practically the same thing as a player saying they're going to have their character take a deep breath and then telling them to make a Constitution check to see if they can.
For my upcoming campaign, I'm intending to give each player a little place card with a few key numbers on it -- Passive Perception being one, AC being another, Saves being another, not sure what all. But the numbers most relevant to hidden checks or to common GM questions that I shouldn't have to ask a lot. Being able to clock Passive Perception of the party provides a much clearer view of which details the players get free, vs. which ones they do need to roll for -- and it gives more "Ominous DM dice" events without revealing that there's something worth looking for.
exploration ultimately boils down to exploring and investigating different points of interest. improving exploration can work fine but you need to learn to feel it out. was recently a player in a session where we were in a dread plane and trying to find a way out. But there were no points of interest, just an endless forest with a lake in the center. Ended up with us walking in one direction mindlessly until we reached the exit. It could have been a very fun session but players need to at least have the illusion that which turn they take matters even if they will reach the end of the adventure no matter what
lesson #1 was definitely what i needed to hear. i've been putting too much focus on description, and not enough on engagement. thankfully the players are my close friends and really don't care either way, but really it's just for me >:)
I've had a few DMs who've been more worried about making a place sound cool than giving players a clear idea about what's going on so I very much agree with about the beginning of this session.
**spoilers for the Mighty Nein campaign below** It took me finishing the Mighty Nein campaign and coming back to this video to realize that Jester’s “god” is the same person as the fawn from this arc.
Mike, as you spoke about meta gaming. All I could think is meta gaming can be fine if it is done responsibly. Taliesin does exactly that, he metas responsibly. Meta gaming is most problematic when a player uses it to gain an unfair advantage in the story.
04:00 I disagree. Here is why: #1 They are in the Feywild where anything can hapoen #2 His players will always do whatever they want #3 He is setting the scene for an audience. Telling them what the world looks like first. #4 Improv. "Yes, and." he let the players decide what they wanted to do and how they would approach and he could react in kind and fill in what they needed. #5 Mercer is Devious! He gave the players preplanned coordinates so they could get as close as possible to their goal. When they went off book he LET them wander, lost, with no direction because when he gave it, they ignored or forgot it. So he made them take more time to get something accomplished because it reinforced active listening and paying attention to what is going on in the game. #6 If yoy give 4 cardinal directions(North, South, East, West) there are 4 choices already presented. If memory serves, the Feywild was not well researched by the characters in game. Percy had heard of it and the Twins were aware of parts of it and Grog had gone there once. Which means anything could have happened. *I think the animated shows gives a brief introduction to just how Wild the Feywild can get.
nothing he says contradicts your list necessarily. The problem being discussed is that's all good on paper but horrible in practice. You just end up with players feeling like they're missing something or, as your very first point beautifully demonstrate, its a short cut to choice paralysis. When you have every option with no context, you really have none because none of your options mean anything more than walking in a random direction. They aren't there to walk in a random direction, they're on a mission.
This is just an extreme version of a tendency that Matt already has that I just find so confusing, and I think makes his games far harder than they need to be. He holds basic information so tight to his (many vests) that characters have to roll to notice or observe basic things that are right in front of them. And when you do that, *everything* becomes suspect, which is how you end up with evil chairs and doors. Sometimes he can be so vague, or gatekeep such mundane information behind rolls, that it's baffling and serves nothing but to slow the game down. The amount of perception checks Matt makes his players roll drives me crazy. And how little he's willing to engage with assisting them in understanding the world through the perspective of their character *in the setting* is another pet peeve. It's one thing not to tell PC's how they feel, that's a taste and table thing. But you gotta tell Pc's what they know because they were raised as a druid, or whatever, your Players do not have childhood memories of growing up near a fae portal, or something, but your PC's have grown up in a fantasy world, they are going to just know stuff that their players wont. The DM is the window to the world for the players, anything you don't describe to the players, is uncertain and may or may not exist. You *have* to point out the obvious, because a literal dragon could be in the middle of the room, and your PC's won't see it if it isn't described. The whiplash that can occur from a DM hiding the obvious only to suddenly reveal it, can really annoy and disrupt your players, and it's just as frustrating to DM's because they will have no idea what seems out of place or obvious to their character, unless you tell them. (Sometimes pc's ask "What does my character think of that, is it weird to them?" ALWAYS answer this clearly, the player is asking for a role playing layup, and trying to lean into their role as their class/race/whatever. Give it to them! If the answer is no, tell them why. Never be afraid to give too much REASON to your descriptions.) Big props to Taliesin, a lot of players struggle with being charmed. It means they *have* to act against their interests and act like they like it. And a lot of people just get real stubborn about that, or try to wriggle out of it. It's a flex that he just went with it. (I usually don't tell people they are charmed, I tell them how their character feels. Which a lot of people online don't like, but works well in my games because it's a feeling, not a truth. I essentially paint the charming character as reasonable, and someone to give the benefit of the doubt, and usually say that they bear some quality similar to someone else they know and like. *Or* I paint the other characters around, if relevant, as being really unreasonable. It is still hard, but if I can give the player a road map, they can try to follow it instead of just figure it all out on their own. When the charm ends, I also ping that those feelings that were so strong, feel a little odd now, or that they know they were false.)
Matt making players do investigation checks when searching a dead body always struck me as a bit weird, and its why as you says you get players obsessed with chairs. No game was worse than episode one of the EXU series where Aabria was DM and for an hour the players failed every roll and they literally had no idea what to do to actually continue the story.
@@andrewshandle Yeah, it's a common problem honestly, and a lot of the time it's a DM kinda vamping and falling back on "Players roll dice!" Investigation rolls make sense on bodies, when there's something they might not find. But you don't need it every time, lol. Like, people have pockets and shoes maybe they are hiding stuff in, otherwise you're gonna find most things a person carries on them in the usual spots. Lol, I honestly think Aabria just got nerves being in the hot seat. But a DM feeling unsure how to direct things, and a party not sure what to do, results in a loop that is 0 fun (I have been that DM, to be fair).
@@Lurklen the Aabria situation was a result such a crazy, extreme bad luck, but it showed that a DM can't rely just on rolls to drive a story forward. In that specific case, after 10 minutes something should have happened to drive them to what they needed to do, _especially_ in a game with a limited number of hours/sessions, so even the "DON'T RAILROAD!!!" crowd wouldn't complain. Instead the players went and got breakfast, walked around town. I'm actually all for having lots of rolls with low DCs to encourage all players to be involved (not just the Party Face talking, the Rogue sneaking, etc.) , but none of those roles should block the "main" part of a story.
@@andrewshandle Well put, and I should clarify: I'm also okay with a bunch of rolls at the table. But I'm pretty against the null result. If I'm having you roll *something* is either going to happen, or you're going to get some kind of information. It might not lead you where you wanted to go, in fact a low roll might close off a path definitively, but it will move us along or I wouldn't have called for a roll. And to avoid people feeling uninvolved I just give lots of skewed information. My barbarian who is a pirate? He probably knows more about the criminal element in a port than the rogue does, and is probably better at sneaking around in that specific context. So I could give him some low DC's, or bonuses to a roll, or when they are in a pirate port and they're trying to blend in, he can just make them successful at that so long as they follow his lead, unless something dramatic happens, in which case we'll need dice. Or in another context, his Goliath self is a big enough draw, that for a low roll he can attract enough attention that if he succeeds no one else needs to roll a stealth check, cause all eyes are on him.
I'm currently watching campaign 2 (ep71 atm), and while Talesin is great in that campaign as well, I definitely miss Percy. It may be the best dnd character I've ever seen performed.
I mean he did describe the faerie lights and then when they rolled he emphasized them I think he was a bit too opaque but he did give them something to do
i guess in a more exploration-heavy osr-y game you could throw players in a random place and just let them ask questions about their environment. perception etc checks of course shouldn't enter the picture, but imo players shouldn't have to be prompted to look around them and figure stuff out.
Yeah I feel like dropping the party into a random patch of wilderness is a perfect way to open things when they Plane Shift (a potentially very random spell) to the Feywild (a famously chaotic location). It's not like there was nothing for them to discover; the moment they described looking around for landmarks he gave them one 🤷
A different show, but in Dim 20 the season where they played Fairytale Characters, Lou brutally failed a perception roll that involved his Pinocchio character thinking he'd tricked some people into believing he was the "Prince of Shoeberg", and a bit like Percy here, he just leaned all the way in on it and it was hilarious. For players to do that they just need to know that they won't get completely screwed by the GM. If they know that they'll likely be willing to play along with things don't go their way. As a DM I always hate when a player completely changes how they play after a failed roll.
Nooo two weeks is too long... PS : my thought for scanlan's drawing was that its in his mansion so it fixed itself . Not sure if im explaining correctly
You obviously do incredibly thorough breakdowns so this question might be useless, but when they actually get to Saundor, can you please discuss what Saundor taunts Vex with? He says something about her mom dying and she shuts him up, and Liam didn't hear the interaction at all because he's online and it's never brought up again I don't know if I've overthought that situation since I first watched it years ago so I've gotta hear someone else's take on the line she shuts up
Matt lets the group think for themselves by not giving them huge signs to follow and you blame Matt for the group not using their own brains? That's harsh man. His 'vauge' disription is there to let them know that this is a beautiful and Completly differnt plane, Nothing can be taken for granted and the usual signs and know enteties are no longer there, so they should think for themslvs and be cautius as he will not be handing them the cheat sheet.
Agreed. The cast are not babies. They can handle much more then your average players. I get what Mike is saying but when he disagrees with things Matt does the cast never seems to be hurt or angry by it. They are having a great time. They are a group of friends having fun and understand each other well.
I think part of the joke with Scanlan looking no different in the portrait is that he is already something of a cartoonish character; he doesn't need to be exaggerated because he effectively already lives that way. He is, as Pike requested, ridiculous. So the fey just did as requested. Sure, there's more depth to him (a lot of which I think Sam was making up along the way so that he wasn't purely a joke character), but he essentially already lives as an exaggerated version of his true self, and so there was no exaggeration that needed to be made in the portrait.
I got the feel that Matt was trying to create a sense if the disorienting effect the Feywild is going to have on anyone. Ppl get lost there literally DUE to aimlessness. The problem is, that sounds good in theory. It doesn't make for good player experience, unfortunately. I've noticed other times... Not super often but sprinkled about, where Matt's failure to give adequate guidance, the players strayed WAY "off book", which i attribute a lot of campaign 2's aimlessness and lack of motivation for the players (or my perception of it) to pursue HIS quest hooks and wind up with a month of zero progression on anything of major importance, ultimately resulting in what felt like the players trying to wrestle control of his narrative he was clearly trying to re-establish away from him because, why wouldn't they? They grew interested in other things.
Gave up after the first 2min: if you don't know what someone is trying to do, assuming that they did 'a thing' badly is just shitty media criticism. Here's a context where Matt's "lack of a thing to interact with" makes sense: the players are in the Feywild for the very first time and are initially overwhelmed by the sensory input such that they just don't register the things that they could be interacting with. Until a character takes a beat to consciously overcome that sensory input (ie 'asks about what there is to interact with'), they're just boggled by the spectacle. If *that* is what Matt was going for: 10/10. He did it *perfectly*. Which of us is correct? Short of seeing Matt's pre-game process for that particular session, we'll never know. Which of us assumed incompetence? Not me...
Weird read. I don’t think Mike assumed incompetence. You know one can do something not perfectly, and still not be incompetent, yeah? He (Mike) was giving his opinion. He provided reasoning for it. The reasoning scans, and you can disagree without it being “shitty media criticism”.
@@kelvinrichardson5324 "The reasoning scans" As I stated already, the reasoning is based on an unsupported assumption. Because that assumption is unsupported, it's shitty media criticism, not merely because I disagree with his conclusion.
@@brianlynchehaun7079 *shrugs* I don’t think I understand what “unsupported assumption” you think he made. I figured it was assuming incompetence, by the rest of your text. He didn’t do that, though.
@@kelvinrichardson5324The assumption is indicated by this statement: "[Matt] didn't really put anything in that they can interact with" (at about 1:55). The assumption is that Matt *should* have put something in for them to interact with. The argument is that by failing to provide this for them, the description 'wasn't good' (I'm paraphrasing). I mean, I put this quoted phrase in my very first post, so maybe next time you're confused by something someone says ask about it, rather than arguing.........................................
100% agreed. Sure a lot of things and mistakes Matt makes may not work on your average dnd group but Critical role is just different. The group is always having fun even when mistakes are made. But calling him out like it's the worst thing he's done doesn't feel right. Not to mention critical role is also still a DND show for viewers to, and is why some things they do are different.
Has someone in your group ever taken a deal with a fey, fiend, or other powerful entity?
That’s actually a major theme in my DMs current game. My character is the first person recorded history to make a deal with a primordial, another player had to deal with a mysterious entity called the Regent of Dreams after her soul was corrupted, another player made a deal with an ancient undead wizard to learn from him (the wizard body swapped him later when that character died), and of course our Warlock who started as a Druid but fell into the service of a Kraken-Spirit thing. Lots of deals!
Two of my current players agreed to become vampire spawn, does that count?
And in a previous game, one of my players (same player as one of the now-vampire spawn) made a deal with a devil which changed his creature type to be part-fiend. So he paid a wizard to cast Nystul's Magic Aura on him every day for a month to make him identify as an ooze to any detection magic.
Oooh Have I.
my longest game, in World of Darkness my character wound up having to sell her name/herself not only to A fey but The True Fey, the lord of fey. I loved that arc, she came to become a talented Sin Eater with Fey touched powers. The moment were she gave herself because there was a crazy situation that they caused was one of my favourite roleplay moments.
I was in a game with a fey wanderer ranger who made a deal with an archfey that had beef with the other archfey. In that same game I made a deal with Bhaal as I converted to him under the party clerics aid.
Oh, I see the Scanlan portrait a different way. He was asked to draw the party as ridiculous as possible, and what could possibly be more ridiculous than Scanlan exactly as he is?
Dosen't help that straight up asked what the most reducluls charcter was and got back a gnome bard from Liem
Oh see knowing how things go ive always interpreted this as the seed for his feelings of not belonging or actually being part of the group. Kind of in the same spirit of “you dont kill the dog” in a movie. Its just too malicious to kill something so adorable and ultimately unimportant.
If nothing else: it's good to remember that even GMs like Matt have off days. I'll keep that in mind next time I end a session and feel like "Oh man, that was not my best. I feel really bad that I was so off my game."
Garmelie's Fey Wild don'ts. Also known as: Vox Machina's Fey Wild vacation roadmap
Honestly being completely lost in the Feywild is lore accurate.
Yeah, this was my first reaction even three or four minutes into the video -- I almost came down here right then to comment about it. But I did end up agreeing with some of the later points made. It's not all that fun to feel directionless... and hey, there are actual studies they've done to prove that having a direction of some kind, *any* kind, leads to greater creativity. Still, if there's any place where the typical directions would be lacking, it *would* be the Feywild -- so it still, to me, felt like a decent decision for a gaming group, though perhaps not specifically for a group doing live gaming with a time limit and an infrequent player at the table and all.
Also, things to interact with? I heard "trees" and "grass" and "pools"; I think I'd start with looking into the pools, if nothing else. Perhaps studying the wildlife; if Keyleth, then talk to the trees. Or if I were in a hurry as a player, I'd try for Perception and then Survival to try to orient (and find out just how weird the place is, if my typical Survival skill fails at useful data there). I'd also suspect that the plant life would be unlike normal mundane plant life, and that things are never as they seem, so I'd be moving more cautiously, and on alert for the point at which "Curiosity killed the cast" -- moments where it would've been better *not* to examine a thing too closely.
I'd also recommend to the group that the team stick closer together than in other environments, because it's possible the physical reality doesn't operate under the same standards as in the mundane world. Perhaps getting separated for a few minutes would leave them days apart.
So it feels like there's actually a lot of possible things to do, that a player like me (a Spade who enjoys scavenging/survival games) would have picked up on and started trying, even if this particular group didn't run with it until they were given a concrete GM-directed goal.
...then again, could also have taken a page from some of the old-school text adventures, and set up *too many* interesting things -- one in each cardinal direction, equally tempting, each with its own pitfalls, and let the team argue about where to go first...
Another way to look at the Scalan picture being true to life is that he already looks ridiculous, so the Fae draws him normal.
Playing off that vanity, 'why does everyone else look ridiculous, but I look normal. Do i look stupid all the time?'
11:17 One of my favourite pieces of game design advice comes from Soren Johnson, lead designer of Civilization IV, who wrote, “Given the opportunity, players will optimise the fun out of a game.”
Although for TTRPGs I'd note it definitely depends on the player. Some players like having their characters make terrible decisions that are going to go bad for their character, either because it makes sense in genre or because it's going to be fun to play through.
Brennan Lee Mulligan said basically, that a player might not enjoy it, but in most cases, they will make their character act to fulfill their personal goals as soon and as easy as possible, making a straight line to their personal objective and ignore everything else, even if the player knows, that they would like the skipped content.
So, even if it might seem contrived, most players eventually are thankful for needlessly complex paths to the end of the adventure as long as they give them an excuse to enjoy the game without breaking the immersion of their character.
Like a winding river that wants to go straight from the mountains to the ocean but has to take a winding path due to terrain (i.e. the obstacles the GM places in front of them).
Therefor it helps, as a GM, to plan the end of the campaign, then place obstacles before this end until you think, it will take long enough to get there and only then really start to flesh out, how these obstacles actually work and how to interact with them.
You want to kill the lich.
To kill the lich, you have to find the phylactery.
To find the phylactery, you have to ask the lich's old apprentice for its location.
The apprentice is long dead, so in order to ask them, you have to find a way to reach them.
In order to reach them, you have to find the corpse.
In order to find the corpse, you have to...
And so on. Even if the lich itself might be not that hard to actually defeat, the journey to this confrontation is what will stick with the players (though a good final encounter will help).
@@Stephen-Fox That’s fair. I think crunchier systems (tabletop or video) will also tend to draw more optimisation-focussed players.
@@Gerendiell I like that.
@@SomethingWellesian Mm, and my experiences tend to be with folk from less optimization oriented games. I'm in a PF2e group as well, but... Lately most of my gaming has been with an RPG book club that formed on a Wanderhome fan discord, meaning we probably take something of that energy that comes from at least being open to GMless storygames, and apply it to games that might otherwise invite more optimization oriented gameplay.
That's my excuse for my character taking the in retrospect very dubious berry a rat offered and eating it in a game of Heart and I'm sticking to it.
(Not even the most dubious thing my character ate that game)
“This scene also just makes the players laugh, and that’s still valuable.” 100%! I know, different tables, different expectations, but this is a game. Having random silly fun moments is always welcome for me.
They are important, especially in the Grimdark Campaigns that is one of my two favourite stiles.
Ok but like I kinda need the nymph rules Matt used because a creature being so beautiful you can go blind is so cool
It's likely that they are based off the Pathfinder 1e nymph rules. If you search "nymph pathfinder", you should be able to find the statblock.
Nymphs did this back in AD&D, I think. But the idea is the most important thing, you can just assign a save DC yourself. I'd go with either Wisdom or Constitution and set it between 15 and 18.
@@Treebohr ooo good idea
Check the Nymph entry in the 3.5 SRD. You might want to adjust the DC to reflect 5e's paradigm.
Blinding Beauty. If a humanoid starts its turn within 30 feet of the nymph and can see it, she can force the creature to make a DC 15 Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, the creature is magically blinded. The target can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success. A humanoid that isn’t surprised can avert their eyes.........but no repeat saves from matt
Scanlan being the only unchanged one also hit's in one other way. He's seen as such a parody of decency that he is an insult to himself. What better insult to Scanlan than to show that there's no better way to insult him than to present him as is.
I thought Matt seemed to emphasize the weird puddles when they arrived
The big difference with the way Taliesin "sometimes" meta games and the unnamed former player is that Taliesin does it so the players can win, the other guy did it so HE could win.
Ah yes, the episode where (arguably) Jester was born
This is what I wanted to note as well. It's not just Fearne's whimsiness, it's also Jester's drawing that may very well be inspired by these moments.
@@Alche_misti think they're trying to say that jester was born here because this is the first appearance of artagan lol...
@@madelyn1758 Interestingly, Laura had already played a version of Jester at this point in a one-shot, and even then she worshiped a god called the Traveler!
@@OccidentalAvianthat’s because the traveler is a listed god in one of the d&d original pantheons, and was made into Artagan in Exandria to suit Jester’s story. Can’t wait to hear his new legally distinct title in the MN animated series lol
@@cricocadazzle4439 It's still the Traveler, since he's called that in Tal'Dorei Reborn, WotC can't copyright that name
Normally I agree with what you say Mike (apparently we have similar dm minds!) but in my opinion I love how Matt started this session. Players should be absolutely lost teleporting into the feywild…it’s the feywild, you’re supposed to be lost if you aren’t from there.
He could've just retconned the last two minutes of the last game and said Pike plane shifted with them the whole time
I cant help wondering if he was aiming to give his players a moment or two's feeling of disorientation. They have just landed in a different dimentsion - the feywild of all places - having them overwhelmed by pretty detail with no clear idea of where to go or what to do is a pretty apt way for someone to feel who has just landed in the fewild! Making getting your bearings or getting any sense of being back on task a challenge is a very good way to express such a wild magical and chaotic plane of existence.
For those who have watched campaign 2, that first drawing is an insane foreshadowing in handsight
the drawing of grog ? or the very jester esk drawings found in the books and how this seems like soemthing jester would of maybe wrote as a kid ?
@@wolfyblackknight8321 I guess spoilers for campaign 2:
With who garmelie really is, and with jester's *peculiar* relationship with said person, the tiny dick drawings must've been a key concept when Laura first made jester.
Man, don't know why but the first lesson of this video is really hitting home with me.
It explains a lot of the times when as a player, I just had no idea what to do. And it's something I really want to focus on in the future whenever I DM
Just wanna say dude, this series is genuinely my biggest comfort series on UA-cam ATM. I'm a massive fan of DnD and critical role but I simply do not have the attention span to concentrate on a 3+ hour dnd session. These videos make the plots of the episodes so digestable and I am so dang thankful for it
I'm in a similar boat with ADHD brain, and what I've found is that it's better if I can cut it up into reasonable chunks in some fashion. Technique 1: Watch the first hour or so (on 1.25 speed) while donating blood plasma, then watch the other 2/3 at home (since brain is already invested). Technique 2: Play a phone game while listening to the play session, and when a particularly interesting moment hits, back up and pay attention to the screen; when it gets back to hard to focus on, go back to phone game.
Technique 3: Watch it on 1.5 speed, locate key moments, record just those key moments, then move on (possibly combined with Technique 2). Then I've got a little library of my favorite moments from the episode, and it helps me get through the episode itself because I'm not focusing on the entire thing in linear time... and I can enjoy the good moments repeatedly without having to re-locate them.
Having this series to help me pin down which episodes are worth this much investment, and which specific moments to watch for, certainly helps.
This is a good channel. This is a good series. I like Mike.
I think Matt's opening was intended for characters to poke around at random to get a feel for the Feywild. Keyleth picking the flower was what Matt wanted. He want them to look around and interact without immediate intent. This was supposed to be a free beat to establish the new world.
This is a case where I think the DM can tell the players that their characters would be feeling curious about their surroundings. To give the players permission to have fun with their arrival in a new world and experiment.
Trinket in this episode: A prequel to Henry Crabgrass in Campaign 2.
If I recall correctly Percy never fired any of his guns since arriving in the Feywild.
Then the fact that Garmelie drew Percy pointing his guns at his own head means that Artagan already knew what a gun is, and how it works.
Something I learned both from playing and DMing is always make sure the players have some sort of goal, some concrete idea of what their next step should be. It's not fun as a player if you feel completely lost, and its difficult to DM because they might do totally wild shit you didn't prepare for.
Poly Machina was one of the funniest bits I've ever seen I laughed till I cried!!!
Your an episode or so ahead friend. But agreed
@@undeathghost5627 yeah I know he hadn't gotten to it yet.
Is it possible Matt was aiming for 'dream-like' with his weaker descriptions, and... Missed into 'vague and unhelpful'?
The first part about Matt’s narration actually reminds me of a really formative video I watched called “D&D Exploration SUCKS. This is why.” By a creator called Deficient Master.
They demonstrated a technique for exploration that I now use for many parts in my session prep.
Deficient Master is AMAZINGLY FUNNY. And probably a phenomenal DM.
I don't remember which episode it's in, but there's a callback to the theater bit a few episodes hence that I Iove.
MATT: You run into something.
LIAM: Is it a theater?
MATT: It is a wall.
LIAM: Is it the wall of a theater?
Given the stuff later, I always assumed that the Scanlan portrait was the joke...looking just like he is to everyone else... but that's not how he see's himself.
Hence...y'know...what happens later...
Another banger video, I look forward to these every fortnight so good!
I'm just imagining taliesin at the end of this session going 'that was a really strong scene between vex and percy, we're going to have a live show next session, I wonder if there's any way to combine these two...'
Can't wait for the next episode of this, one of my favourite C1 episodes
I think the best part of this series for me is its actually made me finally watch Campaign 1 properly
I agree with everything you're saying, but sometimes a GM saying anything more results in The Chair (S2E48). XD
But The Chair is an example of "sometimes players fixate on random things" not really "players don't know what to do"
I like when you call out bad GM things from Mercer. This is an easy trap to fall into as a DM emulating Mercer: have cool and evocative narration but forget to include any actual useful game info
I dont have the best memory, so one of the things i like most about this series is how i can re-experience the story all over again. I do remember the percy/vex moment that happens next ep though and i am very excited for it :)
I started watching Mighty Nein recently! I noticed in episode 4 that Ashley came back to the session and pretty much did nothing of note through the entire episode, only to leave again at the end. I've only watched Campaign 3 where Ashley is there the whole time, so I don't know if this is the norm. But I feel a little bad for her! It took a while for Matt to reintroduce her to the group, only for her to not have anything to do the entire time, just to leave again at the end. Is this something that happens in Campaign 1 a lot?
Yeah, I feel like it does. I mean, I'm sure there are plenty of episodes where every other player gets to do nothing for three hours. This isn't that big of a problem, though. They'll have enough time in the spotlight next episode. Now Ashley, she may not be there next episode, so this really sucks.
But I wouldn't blame Matt. It's really difficult to spotlight a character who's barely ever at the table.
So to answer your question. In Campaign 1 and most of Campaign 2. Ashley was doing a show in New York called Blindspot. So, she was in and out for most of that time. So, while I do think that a lot of the reason why Ashley's characters weren't really featured in any meaningful way, that's also not really Matt or Ashley's fault.
With that being said, since I really kind of stopped watching at early Campaign 3, I don't actually know if this continues other than the fact that Blindspot ended mid Campaign 2.
As far as the other players are concerned, sometimes the other players do spin their wheels on occasion, for a number of reasons.
1.) They want to wait for Ashley to come back.
2.) Too much planning, not enough action.
3.) Genuinely not knowing what to do.
4.) Too many sidequests, little sense of urgency.
5.) Matt typically doesn't push the players into any direction until he absolutely has to.
@@MushyUndTinglyI agree. It’s an unintended conseconsequence of Blindspot being filmed on the complete other side of the country. If it was filmed in California instead of New York it might be less of an issue and Ashley could play more in C1 and C2
But no in C3 she’s still back permanently. Only not being physically at the table when she’s ill or out of town but even then she still plays
It's at least a little understandable. The party had a relatively clear objective and they teleported to the feywild intentionally. I don't think it's super unreasonable as the GM to sit back for a bit and SEE what your large cast of extremely powerful characters (and creative players) do to figure out how to get to their goal.
Do they cast a finding spell, does someone have the right skills or background? Are they just going to march off?
It feels like he was waiting for them to make their move towards the goal (finding the Vestige), but instead they just got lost in the scenery, and that maybe caught him off guard? Not a complete excuse but I could see myself being just as disoriented as a GM, wondering why they came here with no plan despite ample downtime.
In that regard it feels a bit like the Slayers' Take trials: It's not just about killing the beast, it's about actually taking the steps to find it in the first place. Go forth and prove you're competent, or fail!
I mean they have skills (Survival) and spells (various) whereby to get some sense of direction, it's not like the GM has to specifically point out that there's a nearby Point of Interest.
I absolutely love Matt's style, but this sort of touches on one thing about his style of DMing that drives me nuts. He asks for Perception checks in order to SEE. The check is supposed to be reserved for noticing minor details and hidden things. But for Matt, it's like... you're rolling Perception to see if the thing you're looking for is THERE. And if you succeed, it... appears? If not, it's not there. For someone who is so great and has such a good command over the feel of his games, that one thing always seems really weird to me. Asking for Perception checks in order to look around and just SEE things is practically the same thing as a player saying they're going to have their character take a deep breath and then telling them to make a Constitution check to see if they can.
For my upcoming campaign, I'm intending to give each player a little place card with a few key numbers on it -- Passive Perception being one, AC being another, Saves being another, not sure what all. But the numbers most relevant to hidden checks or to common GM questions that I shouldn't have to ask a lot. Being able to clock Passive Perception of the party provides a much clearer view of which details the players get free, vs. which ones they do need to roll for -- and it gives more "Ominous DM dice" events without revealing that there's something worth looking for.
Always such great videos!
The epic introduction of my absolute fav character EVER in CR
exploration ultimately boils down to exploring and investigating different points of interest. improving exploration can work fine but you need to learn to feel it out.
was recently a player in a session where we were in a dread plane and trying to find a way out. But there were no points of interest, just an endless forest with a lake in the center. Ended up with us walking in one direction mindlessly until we reached the exit. It could have been a very fun session but players need to at least have the illusion that which turn they take matters even if they will reach the end of the adventure no matter what
lesson #1 was definitely what i needed to hear. i've been putting too much focus on description, and not enough on engagement. thankfully the players are my close friends and really don't care either way, but really it's just for me >:)
I've had a few DMs who've been more worried about making a place sound cool than giving players a clear idea about what's going on so I very much agree with about the beginning of this session.
**spoilers for the Mighty Nein campaign below**
It took me finishing the Mighty Nein campaign and coming back to this video to realize that Jester’s “god” is the same person as the fawn from this arc.
Mike, as you spoke about meta gaming. All I could think is meta gaming can be fine if it is done responsibly. Taliesin does exactly that, he metas responsibly. Meta gaming is most problematic when a player uses it to gain an unfair advantage in the story.
Well, here he does. Other times, not so much.
I've recently been binge watching Pointy Hat videos and I think you two could do a fun collaboration once you have more free time again
04:00 I disagree. Here is why:
#1 They are in the Feywild where anything can hapoen
#2 His players will always do whatever they want
#3 He is setting the scene for an audience. Telling them what the world looks like first.
#4 Improv. "Yes, and." he let the players decide what they wanted to do and how they would approach and he could react in kind and fill in what they needed.
#5 Mercer is Devious! He gave the players preplanned coordinates so they could get as close as possible to their goal. When they went off book he LET them wander, lost, with no direction because when he gave it, they ignored or forgot it. So he made them take more time to get something accomplished because it reinforced active listening and paying attention to what is going on in the game.
#6 If yoy give 4 cardinal directions(North, South, East, West) there are 4 choices already presented. If memory serves, the Feywild was not well researched by the characters in game. Percy had heard of it and the Twins were aware of parts of it and Grog had gone there once. Which means anything could have happened.
*I think the animated shows gives a brief introduction to just how Wild the Feywild can get.
nothing he says contradicts your list necessarily. The problem being discussed is that's all good on paper but horrible in practice. You just end up with players feeling like they're missing something or, as your very first point beautifully demonstrate, its a short cut to choice paralysis. When you have every option with no context, you really have none because none of your options mean anything more than walking in a random direction. They aren't there to walk in a random direction, they're on a mission.
This is just an extreme version of a tendency that Matt already has that I just find so confusing, and I think makes his games far harder than they need to be. He holds basic information so tight to his (many vests) that characters have to roll to notice or observe basic things that are right in front of them. And when you do that, *everything* becomes suspect, which is how you end up with evil chairs and doors. Sometimes he can be so vague, or gatekeep such mundane information behind rolls, that it's baffling and serves nothing but to slow the game down. The amount of perception checks Matt makes his players roll drives me crazy. And how little he's willing to engage with assisting them in understanding the world through the perspective of their character *in the setting* is another pet peeve. It's one thing not to tell PC's how they feel, that's a taste and table thing. But you gotta tell Pc's what they know because they were raised as a druid, or whatever, your Players do not have childhood memories of growing up near a fae portal, or something, but your PC's have grown up in a fantasy world, they are going to just know stuff that their players wont.
The DM is the window to the world for the players, anything you don't describe to the players, is uncertain and may or may not exist. You *have* to point out the obvious, because a literal dragon could be in the middle of the room, and your PC's won't see it if it isn't described. The whiplash that can occur from a DM hiding the obvious only to suddenly reveal it, can really annoy and disrupt your players, and it's just as frustrating to DM's because they will have no idea what seems out of place or obvious to their character, unless you tell them. (Sometimes pc's ask "What does my character think of that, is it weird to them?" ALWAYS answer this clearly, the player is asking for a role playing layup, and trying to lean into their role as their class/race/whatever. Give it to them! If the answer is no, tell them why. Never be afraid to give too much REASON to your descriptions.)
Big props to Taliesin, a lot of players struggle with being charmed. It means they *have* to act against their interests and act like they like it. And a lot of people just get real stubborn about that, or try to wriggle out of it. It's a flex that he just went with it. (I usually don't tell people they are charmed, I tell them how their character feels. Which a lot of people online don't like, but works well in my games because it's a feeling, not a truth. I essentially paint the charming character as reasonable, and someone to give the benefit of the doubt, and usually say that they bear some quality similar to someone else they know and like. *Or* I paint the other characters around, if relevant, as being really unreasonable. It is still hard, but if I can give the player a road map, they can try to follow it instead of just figure it all out on their own. When the charm ends, I also ping that those feelings that were so strong, feel a little odd now, or that they know they were false.)
Matt making players do investigation checks when searching a dead body always struck me as a bit weird, and its why as you says you get players obsessed with chairs.
No game was worse than episode one of the EXU series where Aabria was DM and for an hour the players failed every roll and they literally had no idea what to do to actually continue the story.
@@andrewshandle Yeah, it's a common problem honestly, and a lot of the time it's a DM kinda vamping and falling back on "Players roll dice!" Investigation rolls make sense on bodies, when there's something they might not find. But you don't need it every time, lol. Like, people have pockets and shoes maybe they are hiding stuff in, otherwise you're gonna find most things a person carries on them in the usual spots.
Lol, I honestly think Aabria just got nerves being in the hot seat. But a DM feeling unsure how to direct things, and a party not sure what to do, results in a loop that is 0 fun (I have been that DM, to be fair).
@@Lurklen the Aabria situation was a result such a crazy, extreme bad luck, but it showed that a DM can't rely just on rolls to drive a story forward.
In that specific case, after 10 minutes something should have happened to drive them to what they needed to do, _especially_ in a game with a limited number of hours/sessions, so even the "DON'T RAILROAD!!!" crowd wouldn't complain. Instead the players went and got breakfast, walked around town.
I'm actually all for having lots of rolls with low DCs to encourage all players to be involved (not just the Party Face talking, the Rogue sneaking, etc.) , but none of those roles should block the "main" part of a story.
@@andrewshandle Well put, and I should clarify: I'm also okay with a bunch of rolls at the table. But I'm pretty against the null result. If I'm having you roll *something* is either going to happen, or you're going to get some kind of information.
It might not lead you where you wanted to go, in fact a low roll might close off a path definitively, but it will move us along or I wouldn't have called for a roll.
And to avoid people feeling uninvolved I just give lots of skewed information. My barbarian who is a pirate? He probably knows more about the criminal element in a port than the rogue does, and is probably better at sneaking around in that specific context. So I could give him some low DC's, or bonuses to a roll, or when they are in a pirate port and they're trying to blend in, he can just make them successful at that so long as they follow his lead, unless something dramatic happens, in which case we'll need dice. Or in another context, his Goliath self is a big enough draw, that for a low roll he can attract enough attention that if he succeeds no one else needs to roll a stealth check, cause all eyes are on him.
I'm currently watching campaign 2 (ep71 atm), and while Talesin is great in that campaign as well, I definitely miss Percy. It may be the best dnd character I've ever seen performed.
Mike, I like your videos. You make good content and you're pretty personable. Keep up the good work!
I mean he did describe the faerie lights and then when they rolled he emphasized them I think he was a bit too opaque but he did give them something to do
Just so you know I've been a bit behind on vox machina and this got me binging CR from ep. 57 to ep. 79 for the past two weeks!
i guess in a more exploration-heavy osr-y game you could throw players in a random place and just let them ask questions about their environment. perception etc checks of course shouldn't enter the picture, but imo players shouldn't have to be prompted to look around them and figure stuff out.
Yeah I feel like dropping the party into a random patch of wilderness is a perfect way to open things when they Plane Shift (a potentially very random spell) to the Feywild (a famously chaotic location). It's not like there was nothing for them to discover; the moment they described looking around for landmarks he gave them one 🤷
I didn’t remember being very bored with this episode until we meet him
32:35 I think he meant Laura, right?
I assumed the same
A different show, but in Dim 20 the season where they played Fairytale Characters, Lou brutally failed a perception roll that involved his Pinocchio character thinking he'd tricked some people into believing he was the "Prince of Shoeberg", and a bit like Percy here, he just leaned all the way in on it and it was hilarious.
For players to do that they just need to know that they won't get completely screwed by the GM. If they know that they'll likely be willing to play along with things don't go their way.
As a DM I always hate when a player completely changes how they play after a failed roll.
Nooo two weeks is too long...
PS : my thought for scanlan's drawing was that its in his mansion so it fixed itself . Not sure if im explaining correctly
You obviously do incredibly thorough breakdowns so this question might be useless, but when they actually get to Saundor, can you please discuss what Saundor taunts Vex with? He says something about her mom dying and she shuts him up, and Liam didn't hear the interaction at all because he's online and it's never brought up again
I don't know if I've overthought that situation since I first watched it years ago so I've gotta hear someone else's take on the line she shuts up
Oh yes, don’t worry, we will definitely discuss Saundor’s monologue
Matt lets the group think for themselves by not giving them huge signs to follow and you blame Matt for the group not using their own brains? That's harsh man.
His 'vauge' disription is there to let them know that this is a beautiful and Completly differnt plane, Nothing can be taken for granted and the usual signs and know enteties are no longer there, so they should think for themslvs and be cautius as he will not be handing them the cheat sheet.
Agreed. The cast are not babies. They can handle much more then your average players. I get what Mike is saying but when he disagrees with things Matt does the cast never seems to be hurt or angry by it. They are having a great time. They are a group of friends having fun and understand each other well.
I think part of the joke with Scanlan looking no different in the portrait is that he is already something of a cartoonish character; he doesn't need to be exaggerated because he effectively already lives that way. He is, as Pike requested, ridiculous. So the fey just did as requested. Sure, there's more depth to him (a lot of which I think Sam was making up along the way so that he wasn't purely a joke character), but he essentially already lives as an exaggerated version of his true self, and so there was no exaggeration that needed to be made in the portrait.
The title of this episode should just be the tagline for C3
In this game Mathew was just a disaster and tank you for pointing this out
I got the feel that Matt was trying to create a sense if the disorienting effect the Feywild is going to have on anyone. Ppl get lost there literally DUE to aimlessness. The problem is, that sounds good in theory. It doesn't make for good player experience, unfortunately. I've noticed other times... Not super often but sprinkled about, where Matt's failure to give adequate guidance, the players strayed WAY "off book", which i attribute a lot of campaign 2's aimlessness and lack of motivation for the players (or my perception of it) to pursue HIS quest hooks and wind up with a month of zero progression on anything of major importance, ultimately resulting in what felt like the players trying to wrestle control of his narrative he was clearly trying to re-establish away from him because, why wouldn't they? They grew interested in other things.
Gave up after the first 2min: if you don't know what someone is trying to do, assuming that they did 'a thing' badly is just shitty media criticism.
Here's a context where Matt's "lack of a thing to interact with" makes sense: the players are in the Feywild for the very first time and are initially overwhelmed by the sensory input such that they just don't register the things that they could be interacting with. Until a character takes a beat to consciously overcome that sensory input (ie 'asks about what there is to interact with'), they're just boggled by the spectacle.
If *that* is what Matt was going for: 10/10. He did it *perfectly*.
Which of us is correct? Short of seeing Matt's pre-game process for that particular session, we'll never know.
Which of us assumed incompetence? Not me...
Weird read. I don’t think Mike assumed incompetence. You know one can do something not perfectly, and still not be incompetent, yeah?
He (Mike) was giving his opinion. He provided reasoning for it. The reasoning scans, and you can disagree without it being “shitty media criticism”.
@@kelvinrichardson5324 "The reasoning scans"
As I stated already, the reasoning is based on an unsupported assumption. Because that assumption is unsupported, it's shitty media criticism, not merely because I disagree with his conclusion.
@@brianlynchehaun7079 *shrugs* I don’t think I understand what “unsupported assumption” you think he made.
I figured it was assuming incompetence, by the rest of your text. He didn’t do that, though.
@@kelvinrichardson5324The assumption is indicated by this statement:
"[Matt] didn't really put anything in that they can interact with" (at about 1:55).
The assumption is that Matt *should* have put something in for them to interact with. The argument is that by failing to provide this for them, the description 'wasn't good' (I'm paraphrasing).
I mean, I put this quoted phrase in my very first post, so maybe next time you're confused by something someone says ask about it, rather than arguing.........................................
100% agreed. Sure a lot of things and mistakes Matt makes may not work on your average dnd group but Critical role is just different. The group is always having fun even when mistakes are made. But calling him out like it's the worst thing he's done doesn't feel right. Not to mention critical role is also still a DND show for viewers to, and is why some things they do are different.
I would if I could make a deal if I played a warlock or cleric