Wanting to take your players on epic sea adventures? Take a look at our first Kickstarter: 'A Complete Guide to Nautical Campaigns'' here: www.kickstarter.com/projects/guysclanders/a-complete-guide-to-nautical-campaigns/
This day will forever be marked as the day history was stopped. Kids will be studying this day in history class as the day history was stopped. All of future history will remember that history was stopped here. When people look into history they'll find that today was the day we stopped history. Future historians & archeologist that find our civilisation will find that today is the day we stopped history. We shall be remembered throughout all history for our efforts to stop history. What a monumental & momentous occasion in history. LOL
If you've ever taken a college level writing class, there is a basic exercise where the teacher will have each student draw a random item from a box and then write a 2 or 3 page story around it. I find this method best way to come up with ideas. I like to open up the Monsters Manual and pick a monster at random and then build a story around it. Make the monster special. Give it an ability, or a special magic item that sets it apart. Even give it a personality. Sometimes i will pick a monster way above their class level and add a mcguffin that the players need to find or use. Its very easy to build a story around a single monster like this. I will often do this for two or three monsters, and allow the players to choose which obstacle to face. I personally don't care which way they go and it makes the game feel more open-world and lets the players feel like their decisions matter. Sometimes i will even link them together, like a Megaman game so that each monster defeated, gives them an advantage on another.
I wont say this is a bad idea, but i don't think its a good idea either. Players typically don't care about the background information. Its okay for the DM to build subsequent games, but its typically wasted on the players unless the players are directly responsible. For instance, if the players disposed of an evil king, only to have a more evil king take over, they wont care. They won't care about the background stuff they weren't involved in. To them its just the same mission as before. However, if the players directly helped the new king dispose of the old one, then its a little more interesting. Sometimes even this is wasted as players aren't really paying attention to the who's who of your story. If the players don't remember the NPC, then your wasting your time. In this case, its usually a good idea to have a player take notes and then at the start of every session summarize the adventure so far. Regardless, world building is a waste of time. No one cares; it likely wont come up, and when it does, its quickly forgotten. The players just don't care who the founder of the kingdom was, or that the King was abused as a child by his evil dad. Quick rule: if it doesn't actually drive the narrative, giving the players information to make decisions and take actions, omit it.
I think this is a really reductive view of players. Certainly some players are just there to kill stuff, but don't paint all players with that broad a brush. I'm always deeply interested into the broader setting and history of the world I'm playing in, and in the game I run several players care a lot about the setting's history. Just because your players have never cared about your setting's history doesn't mean all players everywhere are as unengaged. Maybe look for ways to encourage some mild interest in some historical events and how they tie into the current mission/world. If they don't care at all whatsoever...meh, those aren't really my type of players I guess. "Worldbuilding is a waste of time; no one cares." I prefer worlds with some building to them, rather than "seat of the pants" sort of settings. Again, just *my* anecdotal experience as a counterpoint.
@@sterlingmason3971 its not a matter of engagement, but a matter of relevance. Is the family history of the royal family relevant to the story? Does it drive the narrative? No one wants to listen to the DM give a dissertation on the history of their made up world and NPCs. When things happen in the background, players tend to lose track on why any of it matters. Then the DM gets frustrated when players don't remember details about things that are relevant to the story. Players need to stay engaged, not listen to the DM talk to himself for 20 minutes. Any plot developments should be the direct or indirect result of the players actions. As a DM, i have a hard enough time insuring that my players remember important names, and plot threads, which is usually why I designate a player to be a chronicler. The other problem you have with adding too much irrelevant detail is the players can get side tracked and derail the quest you had planned for them by chasing inconsequential details. Sometimes less is more and anything you tell the players should be relevant and have a purpose. There is a lot videos on this subject. Always remember, the table involves other people, and they want to play a game, not listen to one guy talk. A good DM reacts to the players actions, not the other way around. Most of the talking should be the players, not the DM.
@@jaysw9585 It's not like the DM has to sit there listing some genealogy for 20 minutes; that's a bit hyperbolic. But hearing an NPC butler rattle off 20-30 seconds of the important family's lineage can really set a scene and add import to what's going on. Some DMs can just make that kind of stuff up on the spot and make it feel real, but plenty cannot, and some worldbuilding can be really great in doses like that. Will the exact names of the third generation matter? Maybe, maybe not; maybe the players will have fun finding out. But it just seems too reductive to say "worldbuilding is worthless" when worldbuilding can supply the helpful coloration and background to make a world feel real for DMs that don't enjoy/aren't comfortable making up every single thing on the fly. I suspect you really mean "worldbuilding beyond the bare bones of what I'll use in the session is worthless" but I just like having more background knowledge in mind to help me internally decide what's going on in the world outside whatever players are exposed to. But to each their own, for sure! Different strokes for different DMs :)
@@sterlingmason3971 When I started DMing I liked to make up entire histories and detailed every major actor. I designed the world and personalized every NPC with details that came with a lot of love and care. I actually enjoyed this, as it was fun for me. What wasn't fun was when my players glossied over my carefully designed world, showed little interest in the world i had created or maimed or killed my beloved NPCs. To counter this, i would plot armor certain NPCs, and tell players they couldn't take certain actions. I got angry when things didn't work my way. Then i committed the most grievous of sin and made a character of my own to play with them. This character picked up on all my subtle hints, asked the right questions, came up with the best ideas and directed the players on what to do when they couldn't figure it out. I eventually realized that i was railroading my players for my own enjoyment. I was really the only one having fun. This was why i stopped over planning and let things flow more naturally and let the details come more fluidly. The game got a lot more enjoyable and a lot less stressful.
@@jaysw9585 Interesting story. I don't think it relates to this a ton except where you made the mistake of prioritizing your world over the players (since it's not like worldbuilding undeniably leads to that), but I'm glad you've come to a place that works for you. I do things pretty differently and play with (what sound like) very different players. That's my main point: if the advice in this video isn't in line with what works for you, cool. But it's less helpful to write it off wholesale when it can definitely help some DMs, some players, some games. So you do you, but claiming that this is all categorically pointless doesn't seem helpful. Anyway, keep on keeping on 👍
I'm working on creating a campaign in a regular high school. Do you have any tips on how you could possibly make role playing in mundane high school situations engaging?
5 років тому+6
I have no experience but here's my thoughts: look at wasteful days of high school girls if you want funny characters that fit with the setting, and have it in a country like italy or japan when each student is assigned a class and they never change classmates, they don't get to choose their classes, it's the same for everyone, past years classmates and professors are the same as this year classmate and professors. It makes it easier to have a manageble amount of characters.
Those situations never _felt_ mundane in high school, they felt like life-altering events. Play it up, make it melodramatic like we all were back in HS. Use your best creativity to make them relateable and memorable, too, since players are more likely to get involved in events they relate to and they can't engage with anything they can't remember anything about.
@ I've put myself to task to create at least one classroom of fellow students, and at least a faculty of teachers. Funding will be under threat in the 70s-ish setting, so I can get away with crunching down curriculum complexity.
Im very frustrated because Im really interested on your videos, but im not a native english speaker and you sound just exactly like my teacher and i can't avoid automatically disconnecting my mind like if it was a boring lesson but I really wanna understand what you say
I know it may be a lot of work but it would be super helpful to have revised subtitles not auto-generated ones (even if they are in english, I have no problem with it)
A 200 Year BATTLE? Battles do not last that long in ancient or modern times. Wars do not last that long. The longest "War" in historical periods would be the Hundred Years War (which lasted more than a hundred years but there was a period of peace in the middle). The Longest Battle would be Verdun which lasted 9 months, 3 weeks and 6 days (WW1) 21 February to 18 December 1916. (303 Days). William Philpott wrote of 976,000 casualties in 1916 and 1,250,000 suffered around the city during the war. Between the French and German Forces. It drives me crazy when people set up timelines and don't understand the historical and resource costs of prolonged warfare. Populations in the ancient or medieval world were never that big. Sustained warfare was very difficult to maintain in a feudal or even a republic society. At its height Rome had 250,000 men (including Auxiliaries, stationed garrisons, occupying forces etc.).
And here we take a look at the video of "how resurecion can break your game" ... So the king was murdered and NOT revived??? If the king can't be revived, who can?
Wanting to take your players on epic sea adventures? Take a look at our first Kickstarter: 'A Complete Guide to Nautical Campaigns'' here: www.kickstarter.com/projects/guysclanders/a-complete-guide-to-nautical-campaigns/
This day will forever be marked as the day history was stopped. Kids will be studying this day in history class as the day history was stopped. All of future history will remember that history was stopped here. When people look into history they'll find that today was the day we stopped history. Future historians & archeologist that find our civilisation will find that today is the day we stopped history. We shall be remembered throughout all history for our efforts to stop history. What a monumental & momentous occasion in history. LOL
I detect a pun: To keep the kingdom "stable"... when talking to a centaur
This is what started the whole war.
If you've ever taken a college level writing class, there is a basic exercise where the teacher will have each student draw a random item from a box and then write a 2 or 3 page story around it. I find this method best way to come up with ideas. I like to open up the Monsters Manual and pick a monster at random and then build a story around it. Make the monster special. Give it an ability, or a special magic item that sets it apart. Even give it a personality. Sometimes i will pick a monster way above their class level and add a mcguffin that the players need to find or use. Its very easy to build a story around a single monster like this. I will often do this for two or three monsters, and allow the players to choose which obstacle to face. I personally don't care which way they go and it makes the game feel more open-world and lets the players feel like their decisions matter. Sometimes i will even link them together, like a Megaman game so that each monster defeated, gives them an advantage on another.
I was listening to this in the background whilst drawing a map, and at one point actually thought I was listening to a history podcast. Good stuff!
Another cracking video!
Thanks for the video and have a wonderful everyday!
Starting a new campaign with a new group, planning on using this now
very interesting, but how do you 8th a centaur? Doesnt he have 4 legs and 2 arms?
@@shalkonon013 i guess that could work, thanks for your dedication to scientific research :D
very good
I wont say this is a bad idea, but i don't think its a good idea either. Players typically don't care about the background information. Its okay for the DM to build subsequent games, but its typically wasted on the players unless the players are directly responsible. For instance, if the players disposed of an evil king, only to have a more evil king take over, they wont care. They won't care about the background stuff they weren't involved in. To them its just the same mission as before. However, if the players directly helped the new king dispose of the old one, then its a little more interesting. Sometimes even this is wasted as players aren't really paying attention to the who's who of your story. If the players don't remember the NPC, then your wasting your time. In this case, its usually a good idea to have a player take notes and then at the start of every session summarize the adventure so far. Regardless, world building is a waste of time. No one cares; it likely wont come up, and when it does, its quickly forgotten. The players just don't care who the founder of the kingdom was, or that the King was abused as a child by his evil dad.
Quick rule: if it doesn't actually drive the narrative, giving the players information to make decisions and take actions, omit it.
I think this is a really reductive view of players. Certainly some players are just there to kill stuff, but don't paint all players with that broad a brush. I'm always deeply interested into the broader setting and history of the world I'm playing in, and in the game I run several players care a lot about the setting's history. Just because your players have never cared about your setting's history doesn't mean all players everywhere are as unengaged. Maybe look for ways to encourage some mild interest in some historical events and how they tie into the current mission/world. If they don't care at all whatsoever...meh, those aren't really my type of players I guess.
"Worldbuilding is a waste of time; no one cares." I prefer worlds with some building to them, rather than "seat of the pants" sort of settings. Again, just *my* anecdotal experience as a counterpoint.
@@sterlingmason3971 its not a matter of engagement, but a matter of relevance. Is the family history of the royal family relevant to the story? Does it drive the narrative? No one wants to listen to the DM give a dissertation on the history of their made up world and NPCs. When things happen in the background, players tend to lose track on why any of it matters. Then the DM gets frustrated when players don't remember details about things that are relevant to the story.
Players need to stay engaged, not listen to the DM talk to himself for 20 minutes. Any plot developments should be the direct or indirect result of the players actions.
As a DM, i have a hard enough time insuring that my players remember important names, and plot threads, which is usually why I designate a player to be a chronicler.
The other problem you have with adding too much irrelevant detail is the players can get side tracked and derail the quest you had planned for them by chasing inconsequential details. Sometimes less is more and anything you tell the players should be relevant and have a purpose.
There is a lot videos on this subject. Always remember, the table involves other people, and they want to play a game, not listen to one guy talk.
A good DM reacts to the players actions, not the other way around. Most of the talking should be the players, not the DM.
@@jaysw9585 It's not like the DM has to sit there listing some genealogy for 20 minutes; that's a bit hyperbolic. But hearing an NPC butler rattle off 20-30 seconds of the important family's lineage can really set a scene and add import to what's going on. Some DMs can just make that kind of stuff up on the spot and make it feel real, but plenty cannot, and some worldbuilding can be really great in doses like that. Will the exact names of the third generation matter? Maybe, maybe not; maybe the players will have fun finding out. But it just seems too reductive to say "worldbuilding is worthless" when worldbuilding can supply the helpful coloration and background to make a world feel real for DMs that don't enjoy/aren't comfortable making up every single thing on the fly.
I suspect you really mean "worldbuilding beyond the bare bones of what I'll use in the session is worthless" but I just like having more background knowledge in mind to help me internally decide what's going on in the world outside whatever players are exposed to. But to each their own, for sure! Different strokes for different DMs :)
@@sterlingmason3971 When I started DMing I liked to make up entire histories and detailed every major actor. I designed the world and personalized every NPC with details that came with a lot of love and care. I actually enjoyed this, as it was fun for me. What wasn't fun was when my players glossied over my carefully designed world, showed little interest in the world i had created or maimed or killed my beloved NPCs. To counter this, i would plot armor certain NPCs, and tell players they couldn't take certain actions. I got angry when things didn't work my way.
Then i committed the most grievous of sin and made a character of my own to play with them. This character picked up on all my subtle hints, asked the right questions, came up with the best ideas and directed the players on what to do when they couldn't figure it out. I eventually realized that i was railroading my players for my own enjoyment. I was really the only one having fun.
This was why i stopped over planning and let things flow more naturally and let the details come more fluidly. The game got a lot more enjoyable and a lot less stressful.
@@jaysw9585 Interesting story. I don't think it relates to this a ton except where you made the mistake of prioritizing your world over the players (since it's not like worldbuilding undeniably leads to that), but I'm glad you've come to a place that works for you. I do things pretty differently and play with (what sound like) very different players. That's my main point: if the advice in this video isn't in line with what works for you, cool. But it's less helpful to write it off wholesale when it can definitely help some DMs, some players, some games. So you do you, but claiming that this is all categorically pointless doesn't seem helpful.
Anyway, keep on keeping on 👍
Best. Intro. Ever.
I'm working on creating a campaign in a regular high school. Do you have any tips on how you could possibly make role playing in mundane high school situations engaging?
I have no experience but here's my thoughts: look at wasteful days of high school girls if you want funny characters that fit with the setting, and have it in a country like italy or japan when each student is assigned a class and they never change classmates, they don't get to choose their classes, it's the same for everyone, past years classmates and professors are the same as this year classmate and professors. It makes it easier to have a manageble amount of characters.
Those situations never _felt_ mundane in high school, they felt like life-altering events. Play it up, make it melodramatic like we all were back in HS. Use your best creativity to make them relateable and memorable, too, since players are more likely to get involved in events they relate to and they can't engage with anything they can't remember anything about.
@@peterjames5887 Exactly! I'm really eager to play up the high school drama angle.
@ I've put myself to task to create at least one classroom of fellow students, and at least a faculty of teachers. Funding will be under threat in the 70s-ish setting, so I can get away with crunching down curriculum complexity.
Cool
I feel like this would be a great help if I were writing a novel, with the game I run I prefer to create the world as I go and as they play.
I dont want to be that guy but England was drawn into WW1 because of their treaty with Belgium, not WW2.
Im very frustrated because Im really interested on your videos, but im not a native english speaker and you sound just exactly like my teacher and i can't avoid automatically disconnecting my mind like if it was a boring lesson but I really wanna understand what you say
I know it may be a lot of work but it would be super helpful to have revised subtitles not auto-generated ones (even if they are in english, I have no problem with it)
Wouldn't you sixth a Centaur if you pull all of its limbs?
Just what I was going to say.
3:39 Isn't it WW1? In WW2 the Germans went into France further south along the border, didn't they?
A 200 Year BATTLE? Battles do not last that long in ancient or modern times. Wars do not last that long.
The longest "War" in historical periods would be the Hundred Years War (which lasted more than a hundred years but there was a period of peace in the middle).
The Longest Battle would be Verdun which lasted 9 months, 3 weeks and 6 days (WW1)
21 February to 18 December 1916. (303 Days). William Philpott wrote of 976,000 casualties in 1916 and 1,250,000 suffered around the city during the war. Between the French and German Forces.
It drives me crazy when people set up timelines and don't understand the historical and resource costs of prolonged warfare. Populations in the ancient or medieval world were never that big. Sustained warfare was very difficult to maintain in a feudal or even a republic society.
At its height Rome had 250,000 men (including Auxiliaries, stationed garrisons, occupying forces etc.).
Its a fantasy world. You could explain away the effects on the resources with magic pretty easily I'd imagine.
Actually. The longest war was the 335 years war between the Netherlands and the isle of scilly
You still prove his point even in the hundred years war. It could have had peace or a respite in the middle or middles.
Lol Guy! Wouldn't it be called 6thing? Centaurs have 6 limbs.
50% of their population have 7!
@@ogaburan hahahahah
History relates to writing. So, just move somewhere that still relies on ORAL tradition.
So true, we have many that focused on this tradition in the past, so books and oral tradition can be a bit obscure at times.
Irrelevant with regard to the video content, but I like the haircut.
And here we take a look at the video of "how resurecion can break your game" ... So the king was murdered and NOT revived??? If the king can't be revived, who can?
#StopHistory
Stop history!