"telegraph your build choices" is worth a like and a comment It isn't hard to pull a justification for the final build out of one's arse, but doing so level by level is much more difficult.
🥳🫂👍🏿 Awesome - I call something like this the “magic sentence” - it pulls everything together succinctly and is like the elevator pitch for your character
This is a fantastic topic to discuss. It's something I've always struggled with as a player and up until last night I never considered tying story elements to character progression. I knew I always wanted to take warlock levels on my rogue for some utility options. But in our lays session I stole an amulet from a noble court mage which turned out to be the talisman for my multiclass. It's made the PC feel very real and a method I wanna replicate moving forward
It really does make a huge difference to have that in-story tie in to your character, doesn't it? I don't usually multiclass, but my favorite recent multiclass happened because the DM decided to start having a deity send signs in the background, not intending anything to come of it, and suddenly I had cleric levels on my druid. Loads of fun. :)
Another tip: if your narrative take on a subclass differs from the DM's, best to let them know early. For example, if your idea of hex-blade is some cross between the Witcher and/or a pact-warrior bound in service to a grey power (sort of like a paladin), better speak up before you become the proud owner of a strange doesn't-fit-the-concept dagger your DM thinks is relevant!
I’m with you on that, though I’ve found it is challenging to get people to play along… any tactics you’ve used to keep players open minded to character creation like that?
I have to very strongly disagree for a very simple Reason that sadly far to little people talk about: "its the players charackter, not the DMs. The player needs to enjoy playing his charackter, not the DM, bcs the DM doesnt play it" A lot of Dms want to force their players to "build a charackter" that THEY seem fitting into their world or in the bounds of what they see as a "fun charackter" and they dont think of min maxed builds as "fun" charackters, implieing the player just does it out of bad intentions. But most people that min max their charackters dont do it to f over the DM or to take the fun away from others. Its actually the exact opposite. Most people that min max or even just make a build do it bcs this is what is "fun" for them. Often you just want to play a Guy that kicks people with a big Sword or magic, and then you dont start with the charackters behaviour in mind, you start with a Gameplay concept in mind, which then becomes acharackter build. And then from there you add the other stuff like backstory and so on. (also I would argue its even much more commen then that people actually start with a charackter background or behaviour as many people that start playing DnD just want to play something like their favourite Hero from a movie or CHarackter from a video game that they thought was cool. kinda like "he looked cool throwing fireballs, so I want to throw fireballs, and do it good") So saying you need to "explain your choices for your build" which basicly means you have to "justify" your charackter build towards the DM, just bcs the DM might not like min maxing or building charackter builds himself is bad selfish DM behaviour. You as DM dont need to project what you think is fun at playing a charackter on other people, bcs you dont play the charackter, they do. Dont project what you enjoy as a DM when you paly a charackter on what your players "can enjoy". If a player wants to make an efficent build simple for the reason that its the most fun for them, then what is the problem. You as the DM dont need to have fun playing his charackter, as you dont play it. Its the players charackter and as such the player needs to enjoy it. if you then force the player to change the build into something they dislike you just ruin the fun for your players. The only reason to reject a min maxed build or build concept imo is when the build handicaps the other players and as a result can ruin their fun. A Good example would be a Darkness build with Devil sight. this can be really anoying for other players and noone should bring such a build to a table without asking the other players before. But also charackter idears (without a build, just story) can totally ruin the fun. like if one wants to play a super anoying bard that does stupid stuff 24/7 or a rogue that steals everything and brings all players in trouble all the time. So other then that, let people just have fun. Its a Game, its purpose is to have a good time. So let people do what they enjoy, as what build a player has doesnt impact your story or World anyways. Bcs if you force people to "justify" their class choices then you indirectly just force people to play charackter builds they dont want to play and ruin the fun at the Game for them. And a player that has fun is also much more invested in your campain, world and story then a player that doesnt have fun. Which means you also will have better game quality as a DM if you stop forcing people to "justify their builds" and as a result force people to play what they dont want to. (ofc bull Sh*t builds are excluded from all I said. Game breaking stuff like Coffee lock endless spell slots or endless wish wizard army arent builds, they are just memes that noone should paly in a Game, as it basicly ends the Game instantly, as you have instantly won the campain. But if your Warlock does 50 DPR with a build he hates bcs you as DM thought the charackter concept fits the class better or does 65 DPR with a build he enjoys playing doesnt change anything about your Game. If the players are stronger, just make the Enemy encounter stronger as well (but balance by higher HP, not damage to not kill other player to fast). And lastly: you dont need to have all player be as effective in combat. a player that focuses on a combat charackter build can be stronger then the player that made a role play charackter "build", bcs the Role play focused player will care less about how strong he is in combat. if he would care about combat he would have made a more efficent build. the RP player has his time to shine out of combat in social interactions, in which the combat build player probably takes a bit back and lets the RP player shine. and a build that on its own can do everything alone, every combat and Role play encounter is very rare. that would need to be some charisma based charackter build like warlock. and even then is the question if the player even wants to do everything or just specific things, which in this rare case can be asked.)
I think that the issue is that session zero (and level progression in general) needs to be approached in good faith by all players and that can be very difficult to assume. Part of the problem seems to lie with the PCs assuming that they are free to pick any class or subclass just by levelling up. How does a newly minted lvl 5 wizard just happen to know Fireball and Fly? How did the newly minted lvl 2 Druid gain their Moon Druid abilities? How did the Arcane Rogue suddenly be able to cast spells? These elements of character development need to be part of the story and I say that as an unapologetic power gamer who will min max my pencil sharpening routine to make it more effective. There’s a difference between powerful characters and main characters that is a question of attitude more than anything. How the character is built and what it can do is less important than “why?” From both the point of view of the character and the player. If you want to play the DPR hack build you saw on UA-cam that’s fine. I like having powerful allies. Just don’t be a dick about it.
Thank you for doing this. This helps a little but not neccarily a lot. I already started working on narrative built builds that include a backstory, although i never considered 2 conflicting motivations. Each mechanical choice i make i also try to determine how it fits the narrative. The older builds. Also, even though i like my character to be competent in combat, i don't necarrily build for optimization; i take a fun character concept that i have that comes from a playstyle and try to find mechanics that make the playstyle not just work but really sing.
Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance. It sounds like you're doing a lot of the right things. What kinds of games are you applying to that you're getting turned down?
Fantastic. As a forever DM, I'm always tinkering with my "character backstory form" that I ask everyone to fill out for new characters. This video gave me a couple great ideas for modifications that I'll now have to make to it! Thanks!
Great video, I enjoyed the discussion and found your advice both simple to grasp/implement and also effective. I’m the type of player who gets excited about my build and using certain abilities in game and then I make a character around that and so this advice is something I can definitely benefit from keeping in mind.
I run into players who enjoy that a lot. It's a totally valid playstyle that I think gets dumped on a bit, sometimes. I love that you're interested in finding ways to lean into your playstyle while still also leaning into the story of your character, good on you!! :)
@@DM-Timothy Yeah there’s always a crowd looking to criticize anything. In my opinion, you can only cast fireball or do a bunch of damage with no personality so many times before it gets old. D&D isn’t fun if you don’t have an actual character with which to roleplay and interact with the world. If your character doesn’t have goals, it feels like you’re just sitting around waiting for the DM to do stuff to you.
@@nathanaelthomas9243 I can definitely agree on that front. D&D for poops and giggles is fun, but D&D with a serious motivation and desire built into a well envisioned character is epic fun. Everyone has their own happy place along those spectrums, and I’m not here to yuck people’s yum, but that’s how it works for me. :)
@@DM-Timothy Yeah totally. Some people just enjoy D&D like any other board game, which is fine, but I like the story and the memories of the crazy things that happened and those come by having a group of characters all being themselves in a world filled with NPCs that are doing the same.
I'm really cautious with flaws. I think these should be checked with other players. I like Guardians of the Galaxy, but in many scenes, one of the character's flaws causes a huge setback for the whole team. In fiction, these won't lead to a TPK, but in a game, they sure can. It can also lead games where the team is just cleaning up after one player. Flaws are great and lead to great characters, but just make sure they are not excuses for bad play.
Great point! Flaws and Motivations both can lead to troubling situations. Generally, the best advice I’ve heard for such things is to remember that TTRPGs are a group sport, so you all have to be willing to adjust for the sake of the team. Thank you for this comment!
It is a balance for sure. A character without any flaws likely is to get a bunch of eye rolls at the table. But a character with major flaws will have the table wondering if they are going to invite you back next session. I am currently playing a selfish character. This could go poorly if I sit by and let their character die or dont help out in combat. So when making a decision to help or save another character. I let the table know my character sees yours as an asset nessary to achieve his goals. Or their character is the kings sister and if she dies on a mission my career would likely be over. So they still see my character as selfish, but aren't tossing me from the game.
@@brgessner selfish characters are acceptable, selfish play or players, less so. You can spin your needed actions to fit your character, while still being a good part of the team. Sounds like you’re doing just that. :)
I would say that if you are pitching "builds" that get rejected, you are probably applying for the wrong kind of game. I think this is a result of the optimizer sub community that may confuse new players. A build is not a character. I would never tell my gaming group that I was bringing a sorlock for the next campaign. Usually our character descriptions are "major personality trait, species, main class, something unique about the class" Like "happy-go-lucky tiefling warlock that uses great weapons" Or "smart but naive elf wizard that uses a lot of fire magic"
I generally concur. But it's fairly common for new players to want to play a "good" character, and to go looking for advice on the internet... Where they end up with a build instead of a character, and then don't know how to bridge that gap to get in a game. I'd rarely describe a character in mechanical terms, but new players don't necessarily know to do otherwise when they're planning build #147 from their favorite youtuber.
"telegraph your build choices" is worth a like and a comment
It isn't hard to pull a justification for the final build out of one's arse, but doing so level by level is much more difficult.
🥳🫂👍🏿
Awesome - I call something like this the “magic sentence” - it pulls everything together succinctly and is like the elevator pitch for your character
Precisely! It's a great way to introduce them, and also a great mental prompt for making choices.
This is a fantastic topic to discuss. It's something I've always struggled with as a player and up until last night I never considered tying story elements to character progression.
I knew I always wanted to take warlock levels on my rogue for some utility options. But in our lays session I stole an amulet from a noble court mage which turned out to be the talisman for my multiclass.
It's made the PC feel very real and a method I wanna replicate moving forward
It really does make a huge difference to have that in-story tie in to your character, doesn't it? I don't usually multiclass, but my favorite recent multiclass happened because the DM decided to start having a deity send signs in the background, not intending anything to come of it, and suddenly I had cleric levels on my druid. Loads of fun. :)
Another tip: if your narrative take on a subclass differs from the DM's, best to let them know early. For example, if your idea of hex-blade is some cross between the Witcher and/or a pact-warrior bound in service to a grey power (sort of like a paladin), better speak up before you become the proud owner of a strange doesn't-fit-the-concept dagger your DM thinks is relevant!
That’s actually great advice. Thank you.
Also, sorry about that. *sheepish*
Solidd, character creation is a challenging aspect, but super rewarding when you can slip into it and finally embody the role that youve created
So true. Those characters we truly embody stick with us forever.
Great topic. As a DM I don't want my players coming to the table with a build in mind. We create a party together in session 0, with commonalities.
I’m with you on that, though I’ve found it is challenging to get people to play along… any tactics you’ve used to keep players open minded to character creation like that?
I have to very strongly disagree for a very simple Reason that sadly far to little people talk about:
"its the players charackter, not the DMs. The player needs to enjoy playing his charackter, not the DM, bcs the DM doesnt play it"
A lot of Dms want to force their players to "build a charackter" that THEY seem fitting into their world or in the bounds of what they see as a "fun charackter" and they dont think of min maxed builds as "fun" charackters, implieing the player just does it out of bad intentions.
But most people that min max their charackters dont do it to f over the DM or to take the fun away from others. Its actually the exact opposite. Most people that min max or even just make a build do it bcs this is what is "fun" for them. Often you just want to play a Guy that kicks people with a big Sword or magic, and then you dont start with the charackters behaviour in mind, you start with a Gameplay concept in mind, which then becomes acharackter build. And then from there you add the other stuff like backstory and so on. (also I would argue its even much more commen then that people actually start with a charackter background or behaviour as many people that start playing DnD just want to play something like their favourite Hero from a movie or CHarackter from a video game that they thought was cool. kinda like "he looked cool throwing fireballs, so I want to throw fireballs, and do it good")
So saying you need to "explain your choices for your build" which basicly means you have to "justify" your charackter build towards the DM, just bcs the DM might not like min maxing or building charackter builds himself is bad selfish DM behaviour. You as DM dont need to project what you think is fun at playing a charackter on other people, bcs you dont play the charackter, they do.
Dont project what you enjoy as a DM when you paly a charackter on what your players "can enjoy". If a player wants to make an efficent build simple for the reason that its the most fun for them, then what is the problem. You as the DM dont need to have fun playing his charackter, as you dont play it. Its the players charackter and as such the player needs to enjoy it.
if you then force the player to change the build into something they dislike you just ruin the fun for your players.
The only reason to reject a min maxed build or build concept imo is when the build handicaps the other players and as a result can ruin their fun. A Good example would be a Darkness build with Devil sight. this can be really anoying for other players and noone should bring such a build to a table without asking the other players before. But also charackter idears (without a build, just story) can totally ruin the fun. like if one wants to play a super anoying bard that does stupid stuff 24/7 or a rogue that steals everything and brings all players in trouble all the time.
So other then that, let people just have fun. Its a Game, its purpose is to have a good time. So let people do what they enjoy, as what build a player has doesnt impact your story or World anyways. Bcs if you force people to "justify" their class choices then you indirectly just force people to play charackter builds they dont want to play and ruin the fun at the Game for them. And a player that has fun is also much more invested in your campain, world and story then a player that doesnt have fun.
Which means you also will have better game quality as a DM if you stop forcing people to "justify their builds" and as a result force people to play what they dont want to.
(ofc bull Sh*t builds are excluded from all I said. Game breaking stuff like Coffee lock endless spell slots or endless wish wizard army arent builds, they are just memes that noone should paly in a Game, as it basicly ends the Game instantly, as you have instantly won the campain. But if your Warlock does 50 DPR with a build he hates bcs you as DM thought the charackter concept fits the class better or does 65 DPR with a build he enjoys playing doesnt change anything about your Game. If the players are stronger, just make the Enemy encounter stronger as well (but balance by higher HP, not damage to not kill other player to fast).
And lastly: you dont need to have all player be as effective in combat. a player that focuses on a combat charackter build can be stronger then the player that made a role play charackter "build", bcs the Role play focused player will care less about how strong he is in combat. if he would care about combat he would have made a more efficent build. the RP player has his time to shine out of combat in social interactions, in which the combat build player probably takes a bit back and lets the RP player shine. and a build that on its own can do everything alone, every combat and Role play encounter is very rare. that would need to be some charisma based charackter build like warlock. and even then is the question if the player even wants to do everything or just specific things, which in this rare case can be asked.)
@@comment4t0r61 Totally fair stance. I agree with some and not with other parts, but am glad you dropped your thoughts in here.
I think that the issue is that session zero (and level progression in general) needs to be approached in good faith by all players and that can be very difficult to assume.
Part of the problem seems to lie with the PCs assuming that they are free to pick any class or subclass just by levelling up. How does a newly minted lvl 5 wizard just happen to know Fireball and Fly? How did the newly minted lvl 2 Druid gain their Moon Druid abilities? How did the Arcane Rogue suddenly be able to cast spells? These elements of character development need to be part of the story and I say that as an unapologetic power gamer who will min max my pencil sharpening routine to make it more effective.
There’s a difference between powerful characters and main characters that is a question of attitude more than anything. How the character is built and what it can do is less important than “why?” From both the point of view of the character and the player.
If you want to play the DPR hack build you saw on UA-cam that’s fine. I like having powerful allies. Just don’t be a dick about it.
Thank you for doing this.
This helps a little but not neccarily a lot.
I already started working on narrative built builds that include a backstory, although i never considered 2 conflicting motivations. Each mechanical choice i make i also try to determine how it fits the narrative. The older builds.
Also, even though i like my character to be competent in combat, i don't necarrily build for optimization; i take a fun character concept that i have that comes from a playstyle and try to find mechanics that make the playstyle not just work but really sing.
Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance. It sounds like you're doing a lot of the right things. What kinds of games are you applying to that you're getting turned down?
Also be open about your character. Some players try to sneak their secret OP build into games and that never ends up being good for anybody.
Totally. Secrets from other players CAN be acceptable, but don't try and sneak something past your DM into the game, it rarely works out well...
So true
Fantastic. As a forever DM, I'm always tinkering with my "character backstory form" that I ask everyone to fill out for new characters. This video gave me a couple great ideas for modifications that I'll now have to make to it!
Thanks!
Awesome! Incidentally, any chance I could get a look at your backstory form? I'm always excited to see tools like this!!
@@DM-Timothy Sure! Next time I'm at my computer I'll send it along. Where should I put it? Discord? Email?
@@DM-Timothy Actually, as I look at it, it needs a little love before sending it out. I'll provide it in a couple days.
@@TheVTTDM Either works, E-mail is probably best. timothy@dmtimothy.com :)
Great video, I enjoyed the discussion and found your advice both simple to grasp/implement and also effective. I’m the type of player who gets excited about my build and using certain abilities in game and then I make a character around that and so this advice is something I can definitely benefit from keeping in mind.
I run into players who enjoy that a lot. It's a totally valid playstyle that I think gets dumped on a bit, sometimes. I love that you're interested in finding ways to lean into your playstyle while still also leaning into the story of your character, good on you!! :)
@@DM-Timothy Yeah there’s always a crowd looking to criticize anything. In my opinion, you can only cast fireball or do a bunch of damage with no personality so many times before it gets old. D&D isn’t fun if you don’t have an actual character with which to roleplay and interact with the world. If your character doesn’t have goals, it feels like you’re just sitting around waiting for the DM to do stuff to you.
@@nathanaelthomas9243 I can definitely agree on that front. D&D for poops and giggles is fun, but D&D with a serious motivation and desire built into a well envisioned character is epic fun. Everyone has their own happy place along those spectrums, and I’m not here to yuck people’s yum, but that’s how it works for me. :)
@@DM-Timothy Yeah totally. Some people just enjoy D&D like any other board game, which is fine, but I like the story and the memories of the crazy things that happened and those come by having a group of characters all being themselves in a world filled with NPCs that are doing the same.
Great subject. This is the bridge we need.
Thanks! Glad it landed
I'm really cautious with flaws. I think these should be checked with other players. I like Guardians of the Galaxy, but in many scenes, one of the character's flaws causes a huge setback for the whole team. In fiction, these won't lead to a TPK, but in a game, they sure can. It can also lead games where the team is just cleaning up after one player. Flaws are great and lead to great characters, but just make sure they are not excuses for bad play.
Great point! Flaws and Motivations both can lead to troubling situations. Generally, the best advice I’ve heard for such things is to remember that TTRPGs are a group sport, so you all have to be willing to adjust for the sake of the team. Thank you for this comment!
It is a balance for sure. A character without any flaws likely is to get a bunch of eye rolls at the table. But a character with major flaws will have the table wondering if they are going to invite you back next session.
I am currently playing a selfish character. This could go poorly if I sit by and let their character die or dont help out in combat. So when making a decision to help or save another character. I let the table know my character sees yours as an asset nessary to achieve his goals. Or their character is the kings sister and if she dies on a mission my career would likely be over. So they still see my character as selfish, but aren't tossing me from the game.
@@brgessner selfish characters are acceptable, selfish play or players, less so. You can spin your needed actions to fit your character, while still being a good part of the team. Sounds like you’re doing just that. :)
Thank you Tim. Great topic for players and GMs to consider with tools to apply the ideas. Spot on!
Glad you enjoyed it!
My man, this is a good video.
One thing I stand by, don’t try to trick your DM. The painter holding the brush is really on your side - ask bugs bunny.
Totally! It’s good advice for some DMs to remember, too!
I would say that if you are pitching "builds" that get rejected, you are probably applying for the wrong kind of game.
I think this is a result of the optimizer sub community that may confuse new players. A build is not a character. I would never tell my gaming group that I was bringing a sorlock for the next campaign.
Usually our character descriptions are "major personality trait, species, main class, something unique about the class"
Like "happy-go-lucky tiefling warlock that uses great weapons"
Or "smart but naive elf wizard that uses a lot of fire magic"
I generally concur. But it's fairly common for new players to want to play a "good" character, and to go looking for advice on the internet... Where they end up with a build instead of a character, and then don't know how to bridge that gap to get in a game. I'd rarely describe a character in mechanical terms, but new players don't necessarily know to do otherwise when they're planning build #147 from their favorite youtuber.
Solidarity* you used it correctly you just said T instead of D lol. It is a word tho!
Typo of the voice, gotta love it. Lol