Definitely a personal subject for me today. I hope you enjoyed me talking a bit more openly about my games and experiences as a Dungeon Master. I didn't do a call to action in the video but if you like the videos I make, consider liking the video and subscribing to the channel.. I really appreciate all the support, thanks guys!
You're damn right! I was a bit nervous about being so open, I know that some people are very devout to their views in regards to D&D; but I really wanted to be honest with my personal experiences, because I'm hoping viewers will gain value from it.
Its better to have a emergent story take place as a result of dice rolls and the players reaction to these events. Also encouraging an open table type of style, where the players that show up for the session are the ones that are present and anyone missing from last session is just back at the camp, helps ending the session where the party is heading back to town or their camp from the adventuring site. Trust me this stops so many weird situations of needing x player cause they had the map, nah that kinda stuff is just stored in the party loot after the session.
Couple thoughts: There is an RPG where you play as kids, but they can't die. They can get conditions that take them out of the game where they're hurt, scared, freaking out, etc. but action never escalates to the point where the kids die. That might be a better model for the heroic fantasy second-life type of play you were talking about. That way there is an actual game with actual stakes, but the player's dragonborn waifu isn't in any actual peril of death. Second, I think modern players have a very difficult time with old school mega-sandboxes. For one thing, there isn't as much demand for this style of play because there are video games where you can play in a huge sandbox whenever you want. People don't generally play D&D every day like they did in the 70s, where it's the only simulated reality they're interacting with, so there just isn't as much need for giant dungeons for them to get lost in. Often they get frustrated with that style of play because it takes a really long time in terms of weekly or monthly sessions to navigate those dungeons.
@@archersfriend5900not exactly a novel writer. All the character interactions take place at the table. All the dm needs is a basic idea of who the characters (NPCs) are, what they want, and how they are trying to get it. The players then get to decide what they support or oppose and how. Or, you know, you can use WotC’s giant books that totally always go exactly the way their authors envisioned them, honest…
I think the Darling Character model isn't just inherent in the cultural model for 5e but in the system itself. Between backgrounds, subclasses, and skills, you end up spending a lot of time creating a character. If they die, you have to have a new character ready to queue up for play; I'd hate to roll up one at the table. For a lot of the OSR games I've seen so far (I've really only played around with a handful so correct me if I'm wrong), rolling a new character is more or less trivial. Trying *not* to get attached, then getting attached in spite of your reluctance because you've experienced all these victories and failures and near-misses... you can't cheat your way to that with an elaborate backstory on Day 1.
The darling character crap comes from point buy systems and too many choices for the player. Roll your stats, roll your race, roll your background THEN choose your class. Making all those random outcomes into a cohesive form creates the backstory for the character.
@@aaronabel4756 lighten up man. If you play ttrpgs 4 days a week and have done so for the last 30 years, I get why it wouldn’t matter to you what kind of character you roll up. This is especially true if you’re just playing the game as a tactical simulation. For most players, they are involved in one game which meets once or twice a month, and it still represents a huge time commitment. The idea that they want to create a character that they find appealing is not crazy. If you want to make decisions for your faceless stat chart, that’s fine. You don’t have to deride other styles of play.
@@NewnodrogbobThe process I described is for role play characters, NOT tactical min/max, metagaming build obsessed players. If you want to play with a focus on tactics then rolling stats, background and race is probably the worst idea, and there are better games than D&D 5e for that style of play. If your first character isn't something you can see playing, roll another, it takes very little time.
@@aaronabel4756 I know what you’re describing. My old ass read that process when it was published in BECMI like, 40 years ago. (I know it predates BECMI.) They developed that system when the game was basically: roll up a stat block. Run your stat block through a gauntlet (dungeon) and see how long it survives. It’s the legacy of the game being the fantasy supplement to the chain mail medieval miniatures combat rules. They modified the procedure /made it explicitly optional almost as soon as the game was in the wild. Can you roll a random character, select an eligible class (fighter if your stats suck!) and then give it the whole community theater treatment? Sure. Most of the people who want to do lots of role play don’t want to build a character at random. The folks who do are generally the guys who just want to march their star block through a gauntlet and see what loot they win. Min/max doesn’t even enter into it. There weren’t really “builds” in the first edition of the game, and you don’t need to min/max a build to play the game as a combat simulator.
I’m blessed. I only play face to face with my friends, most of whom played AD&D back in the day and so completely ‘get’ old school gaming. I play 5th but, just like you, I ban lots of the races and options that don’t fit into my world. I crank up the difficulty of the encounters by at least 20% and don’t allow long rests, except back in civilisation. Works for us.
Great video. I completely understand how you feel. I totally agree about content bloat in 5e. Recently been getting into DCC and just recently picked up Shadowdark. I'm now very torn about which one to run in my next campaign. I have a regular Wednesday night 5e group that has been playing for 3 years now. That campaign is finally nearing its end and as much fun as we've had I'm looking forward to running something that is not 5e.
You could start your next campaign with a Guantlet/funnel. Take away their apprehension about the possibility of character death by desensitizing them out of the gate. Then, they have an investment in that level-0 that survived a harrowing journey and has a built in backstory. Also. Olde Swords Reign or ShadowDark are 5e adjacent, but allow for quicker play (and character creation) and less player facing power options.
Yeah I'll probably do that at some point; and yeah I run Shadowdark games these days and it's delightful. Thank you for your advice though, I think gauntlets are the way to go.
I tried writing big, story-based campaigns, and it brought me around to some of the things you’re saying. I listened to some ideas from the RPG Pundit about starting with characters determined at random to increase immersion, and he made some interesting points. Rolling random stats and random character background can give a player the sense that his character isn’t an ordained protagonist. With such a system, he argues, the character feels like an organic part of the setting. It’s easier for the player to immerse into the character’s role if he’s not trying to tell the story himself. I’ve found some merit to the idea, and I’ve taken to allowing the dice to provide character background and natural ability. Maybe it’s more natural for me because I have acting experience, and actors don’t get to choose character backgrounds. Either way, I’ve enjoyed playing that way, and it does discourage Main Character Syndrome.
I've always been restrictive on creation for primarily that reason. Personally, it wasn't with 5e with me, it was Pathfinder 1e. All that bloat is ridiculous. I just run my games with the D&D Rules Cyclopedia. I run sandboxes. I don't write stories. My players do. Let me explain that. My players have a very basic "this is my family, this is what I did before adventuring". After that, I give them the "title" of the book, plop them down in a town, and just let them go from there. They're still restricted to the rules and classes and races I put in place, but from those restrictions comes a level of play that I'll simply expand upon. "Okay, my Lawful Cleric is talking to this obviously Evil Cleric". Me: *takes a note and put it in my pocket.* I also allow them to have a stable of PCs. Maybe they don't want to play a Fighter today. I allow just enough freedom to never railroad anyone. I just take the "thinking out loud" stuff my players will do and tune into that to slap in a hex somewhere. Tim Kask once said: we give you the title, you write the story. And that approach has helped me. Not a lot of preplanning. Just some maps, a few encounter tables I've made, some NPCs drawn up and just go.
Then don't use 5e. Running another system is easier then changing dozens of rules to fit the type of game you want to use. Of course if it works for you it's fine, but at least consider trying other systems that don't have so much bloat
Loving all the chatter on here. Good to talk openly about this sorta stuff. There's always going to be a bit of give-and-take when it comes to players and the dm, but sometimes it's just a bit too big of a divide. Happens and life moves on, but as you say, clear session 0 helps prevent it being too bad.
I liked this video because it describes issues I think many DMs, to include myself, have faced. The eternal struggle of playing DnD as a whimsical second life or a dramatic game is very real. The debate that all started with OG Dragonlance. Its especially hard to share these personal stories because I know when I’ve shared my own personal stories of truly deserved TPKs or events it seems to open a can of worms with people generally coming out of the woodwork to take the players side. At the end of the day you just need to find players and a game that aligns to your style. You could still play 5E but just have players with a different mindset and suddenly have a very refreshing game. Its a learning experience to also find that people who spend hours on their characters, especially on detailed and long character backgrounds you never asked for, tend to be so attached that while Raise Dead is a possibility; I find they would rather just leave the campaign instead. Better to have more of a background for established characters. That way it’s even more dramatic and hilarious when they start saying how they are gonna get married after the war and suddenly die in the same session.
What you are describing is literally the definition of a sandbox. Player driven gameplay and emergent storytelling are the key to success. Also, the module was originally intended to award XP for treasure OSR style, and that alone is motivation to keep coming back, especially if you kept draining the party coffers through hirelings and services in the surrounding settlements and the occasionally unbalanced bandit encounter (your GP or your HP!).
Excellent video and a topic I relate to fully as a fellow "unicorn" type player and a DM. I believe it is imperative to establish the importance of the setting over the ruleset being used. The Setting in my opinion is the most important part of the game and it needn't be the sole purview of the DM, but rather the responsibility of the entire table to create and bring to life. Not to bash the games of the WotC & Paizo Era but these games have devolved into a muddy, mucky kitchen sink of a soup that is completely unrecognizable as Fantasy. I believe we should begin a campaign simply and cleave more closely to Myth, Folklore and Fantasy literature before introducing the more unconventional elements such as "Tabaxi, Tieflings, Half Orcs and other "monster type" PC heritages. And then only after the DM has modified and tailored them to fit in sensibly with the established World Setting. The DM is a player too and when I play a character in the DM's setting I relish playing in such a way that validates and acknowledges the DM's creative input and vision.
"Myth, folklore and Fantasy Literature", you sir are a man after my own heart. I completely agree that this should be the focus. Thanks for commenting.
Dude, this was a great video. As a long time GM I encounter all the same challenges and it’s refreshing to hear another share their perspective. The GM is a player too! Anyway, appreciate your candour and authenticity, Really do.
I ended a one year long 5e campaign when I realized that 5e just didn’t work with the game I was trying to run. With more experience I found that I needed another system to make it work and have been running Cairn since and it works fantastic! I really hope it all worked out well for you.
@LokisLair you sounds like you're doing a great job and you're figuring out the important things. I think the biggest issue is players that think their characters are the most important thing at the table, both in the game and in reality. The most important thing at the table is that everyone is there to put aside individual agendas and pursue collaborative agendas to have fun.
Sorry to hear your Campaign died. As a old Grognard, hearing you talk about players driving their characters into a campaign is an alien concept to me. While having fun is the primary goal, my players have always understood: my table, my rules. Your character will fit into my world and I see fit. I once saw the Barrowmaze approached as the clearing of the mines of Moria. The goal was the complete clearing of the dungeon and the players were good with that. Thanks for the bit of intimate sharing.
Excellent video and commentary. I'm sorry you had a bad experience, but it sounds like you did all that was possible to make the campaign successful. It seems like too many players today want to be superheroes right out of the gate, and want they game to be tailor made to keep them happy. I started in the Olden Days, Holmes Blue Box Basic, then quickly went to AD&D 1st. Edition. We lost players quickly and often. If the dice were not kind to us, or if we made too many stupid choices, then we just rolled up another character, and were back playing in 5 minutes. Actions had consequences, and we learned to work together to overcome enemies and obstacles. None of us complained that the DM was being too hard on us. In fact, we usually rotated being DM, and we all ran games and campaigns hard core. And, because we all DMed at times, we knew, and know, how much work goes into making a successful game, let alone a successful campaign. DM's work hard to get a game or campaign up and running, whether it's a store-bought module, or a homebrew adventure. This is why we still play 1st. Edition. Yes, you can homebrew 5E to make it more deadly, but it seems that the 5E players that show up don't really think they'll have a real chance of character death. And, they tend to whine a lot, because, and I quote "I spend weeks creating this character and the backstory! It's not fair! Why can't I reroll?" When I bring new players into our group, we usually go back and play a beginner-level adventure, and they can see that not just their characters can die, but anyone who is playing. And they see how the experienced players handle it, create another character, and go back to having fun playing. Heck, I lost the strongest character I ever rolled up only 15 minutes into a campaign, then, since there was no way they could haul my body out of the swamp and afford anyone to Raise Dead, watched them loot my character's body (admittedly not a lot of loot: he WAS a brand new character). I rolled up another character, the DM arranged for my character to meet the party later in the adventure, and away we went. You keep playing and DMing the way you know is right. If you lose some of those whiners, the ones who stay will make the game great.
Fantastic comment mate. I would of loved to have played the game back in the day.. it sounds so raw and real.. a learning experience and one you’re doing together as a team rather than alone.
Hey, I'm still bringing people into AD&D. I've stocked up a pretty respectable library of multiple copies of the Monster Manual, Players Handbook, Dungeon Masters Guide, etc. and I'm using it to let my newbies borrow them and learn the game. Some are kinda bummed when they lose a character, but they see the veteran players lose them too, so they generally tough it out and roll up another one. We prefer to play in person, but we might have to pull you into a campaign via the internet one day. :-) Keep up the great work, and don't get down. Good Things are coming!@@LokisLair
I needed to hear this thank you. I see some of... allot of what you talked about in some of the games I have been attached to and/or currently playing. :)
I currently play in an AD&D 1e open table game where character death happens almost every other session. We’ve had around 150 characters total and I think we are close to 100 dead. Just last session we lost a character after he unleashed some kind of extraplanar time entity from imprisonment in a wizards tower. As players, we come to expect death and set up stables of up to 5 characters that we can introduce on the fly to keep the game going in case one of ours dies. Xp is gained quickly even though we always start at level 1 and our characters are rolled using any method we want in the DMG, so we can end up with high stats. Doesn’t matter though, the chance for death is the same for any character. It is possible to have a character survive by usual luck of the dice or just careful role playing. If you stop and look for traps carefully you may find that spiked pit or poison gas valve. It produces some awesome moments where we survive against the odds and overcome some amazing obstacles, like destroying a green dragon because we all worked together, got the initiative and dropped some lightning bolt spells on it. On the other hand I lost two character in one session because of taking poor risks and getting poisoned.
The reason I mention this is maybe it could be a style of gaming you’d like to run, it’s more popcorn and dice rather than unfolding the epic story to save the world and see your character become a god. No backstory investment, your characters experiences in game is the backstory. Though you can get invested should your character survive beyond say level 5 or so, when your wealth has grown to some extent and you can pay for a Raise Dead spell. Some other points I’d like to mention, another game im in using OSE has briefly delved into Barrowmaze. I desperately want to go check it out but I cannot get the rest of the party to get on board with it. They only want to return to the safety of town and explore other parts of the world. I agree that Barrowmaze needs some kind of enticing hooks to lure us. Like a BBEG that emerges and does something to royally piss off the party.
I've had a lot of the same situations as a games master, but thankfully I've learnt how to communicate what I want versus what the players want to play. I consider myself to be a very collaborative player, so if you're ever in need of someone who will work with you rather than against you, count me in
I've come back to the hobby since I used to DM a lot in the 1980's. I like 5e in some ways, particularly the emphasis on actually roleplaying your characters, and I love having stories that are big sweeping sagas. However, I'm also a huge fan of dark fantasy like Robert E. Howard, particuarly Conan and Solomon Kane. I keep seeing a lot of arguments that the DM is there to service the players within the story, or that characters shouldn't die. To me this is kind of like playing a video game on easy mode. There is no real payoff when you finally beat the BBEG. So, I've started adding third party stuff into my game like the Epic Encounter boxes from Steamforge Games, and I ask my players to bring backup characters just in case. I want combat to feel grim, hard fought, and the victories well-earned. Not only should character death be possible, but weighty and important, and a part of the larger story. I guess it's a balancing act between wanting my players to have as much fun as possible, and making the game feel risky, which I totally think is doable as long as the players know what kind of game you are running beforehand.
To be fair, there’s a world of difference between “the characters are unlikely to die.” And “it’s impossible for the characters to fail.” In most video games you can die repeatedly and keep trying with the same character. You don’t get the same reset in a ttrpg. Most people don’t enjoy losing. The more you play, the more you tend to enjoy the journey and accept a wider range of possible outcomes. Some people are just immediately cool with the idea of both failure and death for their character. Most people aren’t. I’m pretty sure if you did a survey of games in the 80’s, they’d find there was a lot less character death going on than everybody likes to pretend. I mean, they didn’t put in spells to raise the dead because no one ever wanted their character back…
@@Newnodrogbob Like I said, it's balancing act. One of the main differences between AD&D and 5e is that there were very few long term campaigns in AD&D, with the possible exeptions of Temple of Elemental Evil and Dragonlance. I remember there being a lot of character death going on then, but people were less invested in their characters because the adventures were much shorter, which I guess is Loki's point in this clip. I'm all for longer campaigns myself, just not without some kind of risk.
Hey Loki! This was such a great video. You’ve perfectly put into words what tends to happen to my 5e games. They’re something I don’t like to prep or run because of the complexity, and the systems don’t really support my preferred method of gaming. I guarantee if your players had been told that gold = xp like BX they’d be hunting down every last piece in the dungeon. I find that player motivation and character attachment are the two things that kill my modern games compared to old school ones and you hit both of those nails on the head in this video.
@@DemiosOctavo or you can play an rpg to have a sense of progression and story and meaningfully develop your character knowing they aren’t going to permanently die.
One of the things I have done was use a campaign as a “dream sequence” when the players were not positive they were going to be able to play regularly. Once I had a core set of players for the story I had in mind for all of us to tell….. I began in earnest. It helped with lore building for the story. I’ve also utilized all of the “races” as “humans” with special characteristics that shift to say Tabaxi or teiflings under certain like those dream sequences. I had to home brew some different “freebie” feats that allowed shifting in the “real world” to show their true nature, which lead to gifting and creating other feats, as the story progressed, that were not OP but gave a boost and added to their flavor……. My favorite feat I created was called Parting the veil, which is essentially disguise self that allowed the players to be seen as the fantastical species for a period of time outside of the dream scape.
I think I've had a very similar experiences with player expectations, and I've also landed on trying shorter adventures going forward. I hope you find a style and format that feels right for you. The GM needs to be having fun too.
Excellent advice, as always. For my next start up, I'll lay it all out up front: my campaign will be a dungeoncrawl where your goal is to accumulate XP and treasure. I'll make adjustments to the RAW for whatever system I'll be running, so even if it is 5e, it's not going to be the same as other campaigns your buddies ran for you. I will provide pregenerated characters with backgrounds and everything for the players to choose from, just like acting in a play. Nobody got the role of Richard III in Macbeth. I'll describe what my world is like so that there won't be any crying about playing a half-tortle half-tabaxi Rogue/ Artificer/ demi-god. Your motivation is rolling dice, killing monsters and evading traps, and accumulating wealth to retire as a local baron somewhere in my game world. That said, I have no issue tweaking the game to pique player interest. I just won't change everything to satisfy that one player. I also need to enjoy the game.
This video hits home on so many different points for me. When you start a group and select or design a campaign you have to make choices about which ways you want to go concerning the paradigms you've outlined. Sandbox vs Longform story Episodic vs Narrative Storyline Survival Fantasy/Horror vs Heroic Fantasy OSR/Old school vs Modern D&D/fantasy These are often hard choices to make, and you have to be on the same page as your players. And you are 100% correct about bringing your improv A-game to the table. Example: In my homebrew 5e sandbox campaign, I threw in a portal to hell as a side quest. But it's a homebrew world that I wanted to be distinct from the D&D lore/planar cosmology. So I then had 2 weeks to design Hell. One of the encounters in hell was the Astral River, a way of travelling the underworld and connecting different planes. Of course, one of my characters stuck his head in it and got sucked in and spat out into the Astral Sea. And his comrades after a brief debate jumped in after him. Great. Nevermind what I had prepared in Hell. Now we get to explore the Astral Sea. My own fault really, but the adventure was supposed to be a murder mystery in a small village. Long story short, they opened the portal and left it open behind them as they were lost for 3 months game time. Demons came out and ate everyone's babies. So when they got back, the party rallied a force of mercenaries and demonslayers and declared war on the demon lord. The campaign ended when they destroyed the portal and the ruined temple they were standing in. None of this was predetermined. Multiple endings were possible. A total of 7 players and numerous NPCs died in regular combat and exploration throughout the campaign. No punches pulled. And it all started from a little one-off adventure hook in the middle of a sandbox hexcrawl campaign. Sticking to predesigned narrative or content is a choice that you have to recognize only works with a certain type of group for a certain type of game. Improvisation, changing plans, designing on the fly are the alternative to that choice. Fudging outcomes, dice rolls and quantum ogres is also a choice. I prefer not doing it. A sandbox game doesn't need a predetermined story. If you add leads and allow your players to make actual decisions that have actual consequences, it will lead to truly emergent storytelling.
I have a long string of abandoned campaigns so I strongly agree with the short form, episodic style. The error I see is trying to create a story of the campaign. Have a story of the location or the world and then let the players discover that but don’t try and lay out the story of the characters. I think if players (and Dm) want a lot of player input and control then they need to be assisting creating the world and mating out the campaign not just their own characters. D&D literature doesn’t encourage this but you can import these ideas from games like Microscope or The Quiet year.
Greetings Loki! This is a terrific topic to discuss @ the start of 2024. A spectrum of great games rooted from the essence & love of our hobby has emerged. And with playing new games & trying older ones, we've learned to identify preferences in settings & game styles. From crunchy story driven players to rules light risk taking survivalists, death on the table is a tug-of-war & is ultimately unveiling our players & what they are truly looking for in a game. Some are mad that combat takes too long @ higher levels & some are mad for dying every session @ low levels. I've come to terms with long campaigns not working for me. After investing a year in a game as a player, then having health issues & having to miss out on monumental events, I've decided my games need to be stacks of one-shots. This way I can create back stories from level 0 during gameplay. Based on players motives & creativity, I can customize and switch up the next one-shot to support the direction the way the players lead. I love to hack & slash my mechanics from multiple systems, so why not do that for my players adventures. If they can survive to the next one-shot or if we decide to take a break & try a different game for a session or so, I take creative responsibility for tieing it all together seamlessly for their story development. And if it goes a year, cool, and if we have an emergency shut down, it'll be ok because one-shots have great stopping points. This video faces the realest side of todays gaming & I think your amazing for breaking things down for us to analyze together. Cheers to you Loki!
My one-shots aren't really in one session, they are actually 2-6 sessions, so I should say "modules". Maybe if I did a 12 hour session, I could go through it in one shot.
Just say no to backstories :) About a paragraph should cover a level 0-1. I think part of the issue with player attachment to characters, is the perception of a win state. The win state IMO is role play. Save or die mechanics and or deadly encounters, will sweeten the experience IF the character lives, which is often overlooked.
I actually had a similar experience the first time I tried to run my Barrowmaze campaign. The module is great, but it requires players to give in a bit an be willing to play that sort of game.
Yeah it's definitely a change of pace and I think it's far better suited to old-school players, especially the older generation who played in the 70s and 80s.
@@LokisLair Absolutely. There is a fair amount of content on UA-cam about preparing DMs to run OSR games after running 5e, but not as much content for how to prepare players.
I really like how pathfinder empowers GM to limit players options. Everything in the system habe rarity tags. And those tags are made with "does this fit classic fantasy?" mindset, and they are only useful for GMs to limit player's access to them. If GM wants to play a very basic setting without a need to adjust anything to PF2e's loore, they can just allow players to use everything with common tag and nothing else. For example, Wizards, Fighters (classes), Humans, Elfs (ancestries), Greatswords, Bows (items), Magic Missle (Force Barrage in remaster, spells), Wrestlers and Acrobats (archetypes) and are common. Nephilim (Aasimar of pf2e), Undines, Catfolks, Gnolls (Heritages/Ancestries), Gunslingers (Classes), Battle Lute, Katar (items), Torturous trauma (spells), Soulforgers and Bullet Dancers (archetypes) are uncommon. Beastkins, Skeletons, Fleshwarps, Sprites (Heritages/Ancestries), Exemplars (Classes), Clockwork Macuahuitl (items), String of Fate (spells), Chronoskimmers, Curse Mealstorms and Clockwork Reanimators (archetypes) are rare. It doesn't mean Rare or Uncommon things are stronger than Common ones. They are just less common, more unique and weird. Overall system seems to be designed with game masters in mind... which is honestly a breath of fresh air
I like that pf2e comes with the expectations that it's the gm's game and they can allow or forbid whatever they want. Maybe if 5e was made with that in mind we wouldn't have the animosity so commonly seen towards DMs on social media
I played RPGs for 30+ years. I might not have been around for the really old school days. But I was certainly around for AD&D and I played D&D 1st with the old school dudes. And I can assure you that even back then many DMs realized and took into account that character deaths have downsides and are detrimental to certain kinds of playstyles and experiences. We do things like this a lot. Look at history and forget about all the nuances and look just at the main stream. Or in this case at what we think was the main stream, because it seems to be because if we look at the supplements from back then it seems to be. You can`t run a weekly 5 year campaign with a character death every other session. Or at least you shouldn`t. If long arcs are your goal you need long lifespans. Otherwise another character will end the quest than started it. And this becomes especially bad if none of the orginal characters is still around. This is common knowledge among veterans. And kind of the same thing you concluded. If you want it deadly go for short campaigns. But I would strongly advice against a 5 year campaign arc anyway. It`s just too ambitious. Players will become fathers (or still less often mothers), move because of job situation, finish their studies, get sick (or healthy), get girlfriends, get new hobbies... 5 year commitments are huge. And hard to keep. My approach to the hobby these days is twofold: One-Shots for fun and to experiment. And to learn new skills for the table. If you play a few successful one-shots you will realize how much story and fun could actually fit into one session. Now I have a ton of examples. But the first one-shot I ever gamemastered after I learned the name was last year. And I managed to put an entire pirate-treasurehunt storyarc into 4 hours. Including rivaling pirates, a naval battle, a sword fight, ... And at moments like this you start to wonder why long standing campaigns often are so slow paced. Which is often one thing that can ruin the fun. And you can learn from one-shots how to run sessions in a good way. Long standing campaigns which are a mixture of sandboxes and detailed planned adventures and scenarios within the sandbox. And my approach to campaigns is this: I have a somewhat detailed plan for next session. Not in the sense that I know exactly what I will do all the time. But in the sense that I will throw some exciting things at the player and look how they will react. And if they ignore them (for now) that`s fine too. Because usually they ignore them because they have something more interesting left from previous sessions. But I aim at either a cliff hanger or a conclusion for the end of every session. I have a plan for the season / the chapter. The next few months of the campaign are somewhat laid out. And there are mid term goals to be achieved when the chapter ends. I have a very vague plan for the upcoming chapters. And when the current chapter reaches it midway point I will lay the groundwork to promote the next chapter. Subtle. And I have a definitive plan for the end of the campaign. And several exit points. At the end of every chapter I ask myself if I want to continue and for how long. I see a good analogy for tv shows. You want every session to be relevant and reasonable paced. You want every season to have its own story arc. And they should all tell a big story with a good ending when the last season is ending. That`s a tall order for a RPG campaign. But by just aspiring into this direction your campaigns will become so much better. The end of a campaign is not a tragedy. It can be a really great experience actually. But if you invested a lot into a campaign and it ends on a low note and fizzles out or goes with a bang in a huge fight... that sucks. During the severe phase of covid I gamemastered a 3 year Star Wars campaign. Nearly every week we gathered at our VTT and played. And when the main quest came to an end I ended it. The players wanted to go on. But I stood firm. Everyone told a story how he envisioned the non-adventure end of his characters life. And it felt incredibly satisfying. There was an element of grief. But it so rare to have a satisfying ending that I took the chance. Sure enough one of the players took another job which would have ended his commitment to the group and the other one left the country for a different time zone. All within a few months after we decided to conclude the campaign. Would have really sucked to open another chapter without the ability to wrap the campaign up on a high note.
My players fall into the "Expect the GM to present the path to us" category, rather than embracing the sandbox and taking their own initiative. It's a mix of good and bad. As a GM I can prep a session and pretty much feel safe I am not wasting my time and my players won't decide to wander off to spend the session travelling south instead of north just because they felt like it leaving me to improv an entire session of content. On the other hand, I don't get any surprises, I have to drive the session, and it's hard to craft things that I know will interest the players because they seldom take initiative, narrative control, or show interest in things on their own. I had to kill a group that was starting at 11pm as well. I get up at 6am on weekdays for work, so it became too hard for me to be awake enough by 1am Sunday morning to be running a game. I ended up killing off that group.
@LokisLair haha. Luckily in the Symbaroum game I am currently running had a player take more of an interest in a mundane ancestral sword pulled off an undeads they destroyed. I came up with some ideas that should produce some side-content for a few sessions. Maybe I am finally getting them to take interest in things on their own.
I totally get where you’re coming from. I feel like modern DND has become very player centric. In my last campaign I bent over backwards as far as race and class allowances and writing pages and pages of material to integrate character backstories into the campaign (with player input at their request) and then a couple sessions in I had a player drop out because he felt I was railroading him…not an ounce of thought for how much of my work was now just going to be thrown away and rewritten.
Lol i've dealt with that before; and if I'm honest, I'm pretty done with it. I think I just want to focus on running my adventures and having exciting moments, I don't want to worry as much about backstory, etc.
Perhaps the problem is essentially one of expectations. A DM is tasked by the ttrpg with a few jobs: 1. Simulating a fantasy/sci-fi/horror world where it's interesting to be a player 2. Adjudicating the outcomes of the players choices. 3. Thoughtfully portraying the inhabitants of that world with enthusiasm. In contrast, it seems that I occasionally hear players are trying to get the DM to write and direct a TV series where they are the only important cast members(and they each think are sleeping with the producer, and can have their way constantly). It's important to remind the players that: 1. This is a Game, outcomes aren't guaranteed, and each person's choices affect everyone's fun. 2. It's a game you're all playing together, so anyone being a self-centered jerk is doing it wrong, and might need a reminder, or to find another activity if they can't act right. 3. Everyone at the table is there for a leisure activity. Only fun for non-DM players is not how this works. Side note: If people are paying the DM to play the game with them, then they are paying the DM to Play. If they don't think they should pay someone to have fun with them, then that's their problem, not the hobby's.
One way to add choice to player death is to let the player chose between some sort of maiming or permament debuff.. Or some sort of heroic act of "you are also going down".
nice vid reflecting on a campaign. sometimes thing don't work out the way we would like. Player expectation can be very challenging. especially if you are not playing with a group you have run for before. PCs die in my games (i run modules, currently age of worms and RHOD) luckily i have never had a player get very upset about it, although it always sucks in the moment. I don't do session zero. i have an onboarding document when im ready to run a game. it says the general idea and theme and highlights any particular rules i want to run by. people can decide if they want to play or not based off the document. sometimes i don't run a game because the group is not interested in that kind of game. that's ok. looking forward to your next vid.
I have a campaign I am running where there is a megadungeon. The players level up when they reach a next level of the dungeon, and they know this. Best way to encourage player to explore the dungeon. They literally know how and when they level up, even if it isn't experience based.
Sorry, too here about the game. We just ended our 3 year game as well in KotB game. TPK got it. Now I’m trying to put together a Pirate campaign which I’m never ran. Definitely using Shadowdark as I move forward or what we call (5e Basic). Still keeping the grit and danger.
I tried to be so I appreciate the fact you noticed. After all, I'm not trying to alienate players who want a different game to me.. I think it's important to understand and embrace our differences.. that's what makes our hobby so great.
@@LokisLair I've mentioned this before, but I'm completely new to this, I'm not a part of the hobby so to speak I just grew up in the 90's, read and heard about d&d and fantasized about one day being able to play it. Life went on and I never did, as a grown man with a family I saw a starter set at a store and I said screw it let me have a look at this, got on UA-cam and looked at all the usual channels and what they were playing didn't seem to match what I had envisioned, obviously a far cry from what I guess we'd call "old school" d&d from my youthful memories. Took me a while to find other channels, such as yours, to find what more closely resembled what it would be like to play. I've still never played the game but I dm for my kids and my sister and brother in law, we do our best but I have to tone back the "grim dark" I want for my players, I hope to one day both play the game and dm for some people that are a little more engrossed and enthused at the idea of ttrpgs. Love your work loki.
Ive ran many campaigns and one shots that featured the barrowmaze and i found this to be true about all of Greg Gillespies megadungeons. These settings are like soup stock, theyre a great vase to start from but you need to inject a lot of directions and story hooks to make it a rich campaign.
I think mega-dungeons aint for a clear story but for exploration and a challenge alone . Either the Megadungeon can be visited often which gives players a clear goal to to explore one floor per visit. Stronger and better prepared than before . Other point to megadungeons are that not every path should be opened up. Every path should have their own merits and dangers too that even replaying that dungeon aint boring even after the 5th or 6th try with different characters . Overall are megadungeons either more an own campaign itsself or sonething like the endgame to see how far these legendary heroes can explore till death comes without a warning . Even i looked often at megadungeons and try to understand how those should work which my results are that megadungeons are challenges for the player while the DM can unleash the dangers that haunt these halls . I prefer megadungeons as the huge challenge when my players wanna have less of a short adventure and more an immersive challenge to test out their with , strengths and abilities .
Play style, setting and tone (and I think the way you handle character death is an important part of that) should definitely be the first things to be discussed. Even before you get everyone together for a session zero, I think you should at least roughly be on the same page about this. What good does it do for anyone if one person wants to play heroic fantasy with heavy plot armour and someone else wants a leathal dungeon crawl? But it can be really hard to communicate that. So many people in this hobby either forget, or have never realized, that ttrpgs are as varied as board games. Actually, there probably even more varied, since two tables can play the same system and have two completely different play styles. Most people just seem to assume, that their play style is what all ttrpgs are.
May I suggest winter's daughter, the hole in the oak and incandescent Grottoes by Gavin norman. Also nightmare over ragged hollow by Joe Lewis (merry mushmen). I feel these adventures may fit what your looking for.
I haven't tried to run D&D in quite a while. Right now, I'm running Call of Cthulhu, but if I were to run a fantasy game, I'd definitely run Shadowdark. It's the best bridge between 5e and OSR that I've seen.
We GMs just have to give ourselves a break once in a while. Go out and take a walk, sleep a lot, eat well. I really like your videos although I GM Blades in the Dark and although I don’t have made very good experience with oldschool or sandbox campaigns. Keep up the good work. My all your rolls be sixes 😇
Good video. People who are used to story-based roleplaying are going to be attached to their characters like they would be if they were reading a high fantasy novel or watching an epic fantasy film. Even though there is some character continuity in heroic fantasy (Sword and Sorcery) which a lot of OSR is based on, death and the gritty nature of the genre are fairly large elements that should pervade every aspect of telling or roleplaying that story.
There was another channel I follow where the video creator was creating Shadowdark characters and he rolled several 1s for hitpoints. I don't see a problem with having only 1 hitpoint. It means you're going to need to use every other rule to your advantage that you can: avoid combat and be extra careful to avoid traps. In fact, a 1 hit point character probably wouldn't take certain risks in the first place. But a lot of people have gotten twisted up thinking that rpgs are primarily combat simulations. (D&D thinking, unfortunately). So of course if the game is a combat simulation, 1 hitpoint is going to seem like a bit of a burden because that character will likely not survive combat. So the character will need to focus on something else besides combat. Many OSRs will reward that character's player with innovative play (ACKS has several experience rewards tied to gaining of treasure, trading, and creating magic items, researching, and more). D&D seems to primarily only award experience rewards for combat and story completion.
Try an actually lethal open table, for example a sandbox set around a central 'hub' location. As an example, check out the Old-School Essentials Recap Series by Mage's Musings. (That one was exciting, and quite lethal.)
Whether "certain D&D channels" are the cause or not, there is a culture that has built up around 5e that the customer is always right. The customer being the player. That setting limits to character option meant a DM was bad, boring, uncreative or worse. Recently on Xwitter, there was an outpouring of outrage that a DM limited the races available, including ones that were the darlings of the modern 5e player. The power seems to have really shifted to players away from DMs. There was discussion previously about DM shortages and I think this is much the cause. No stakes may suit a lot of people just fine, but without it it's just playing pretend with your OCs.
Yeah if you are trying to run a game that is human heavy you just need to establish this early on and make sure your players are good with it. Nice set of movies to base your games on. Yes establish what the players want. I don't want to DM a 1st level character that is already amazing. That's not a character arc. It's a character line or character incline. If they are a prince and 1st level something has happened. They are still first level in power despite who their parents are. I've fleshed out the Averoigne section of the Amber Castle module which is an alternative 13th century France with necromancers and alchemists but also clerics who don't get spells and who hate Magic. It's also a human centric 13th century France during the reign of Chares V. But it's an interval. The elves can cover their ears. Dwarves are thought to be midgets. and your magic users just have to be circumspect while they are here. Then they move back to the world. My experience is it's nice to play tiny easily consumable bits that resolve in a session or two or three. Thus my love for Modules. Nice consumable chunks And then as you say move on.
Specific to this scenario, I think you could basically turn off PC death for it. They went to accomplish a small goal, so any death there feels wasted.
God I want my current shadowrun game to end so we can move on to the One Piece game I've been working on for a year and a half. (I am DM for my table, and they love our current necromunda shadowrun superhomebrew "game" but I've grown tired of it, they're already so overpowered they can two shot the strongest enemies in the game with minimal damage taken. It's not even that they were given unrealistic equipment or abilities, each of their sheets is pretty legit with mild reflavoring. The games just gone on so long that they're practically gods.)
5e is brutal to dm. It encourages the dm to come up with everything and be an entertainer. I am happy to run games, but not intetested being an entertainer for entertainers sake. When you try to please everyone, you get a very meh, product.
Also you end up not pleasing yourself.. Smart players know when their Dungeon Master isn't feeling it anymore.. and that just adds to the sinking ship.
The problem is that. If you create a culture, it is very hard to change it. The established culture becomes the norm. 5th edition has a set culture. It is safe, heroic and great back stories develop. Other games offer other things.The problem is taking 5th ed players and immersing them in stark difficult OSR in my opinion.
Here is how I solved the issues YOU are having. 1. My mega dungeon literally levels players up. When they reach a new level, they also reach a new level. Meta! 2. You are easily killed in my dungeon, but revival services exist and are cheap. Other adventurers often bring up dead delvers for a coin reward. 3. if you die, there is a 20-30% chance of being eaten. This means you can't be revived. You are done. 4. I have no over-hanging story. I simply dangle backstory stuff in front of my players and weave them into the lore of my world. If they want to solve THEIR issues, they have to understand how the world works, which means they ask a lot more questions than normal about the setting.
You are not doing anything to convince me 5E DOESN'T SUCK and that the players who started out with it have any idea how D&D is played. No, I DO NOT count 5E as actually being D&D. Good video, enjoyed it
I dislike 5e a lot but at some point you gotta realize system does matter. 5e was made for high fantasy. If he's playing a low fantasy on 5e and it's not going well then he only has himself to blame. It's like trying to play medival fantasy on cyberpunk, it's not going to work lol But to be fair 5e is infamously shit to DM so it probably didnt help either
5e is absolutely D&D. It's simply a different version than you prefer. Every edition has been fun for someone, and some have has fun playing all of them.
Good video, I think that your Conan idea could really work for a group in which players might not stick around for too long. The party would be built around Conan or some other 'employer' and the PC's could join or leave as they see fit. The 'employer' stays the same carrying out adventures that take less than 4 weeks IRL and in different locations and the PC's are part of their party. The only issue is to make sure that Conan or the 'employer' doesn't take the spotlight away from the real party. You could have them be so distracted that they are bad at making decisions or have them deal with a big villain while the rest of the party is dealing with the real problem. An idea that I have used is a scholar who has really basic combat/magic skills who is a stereotypical absent minded professor while being very knowledgeable and dedicated to seeking new knowledge. However he needs a group of adventurers to keep him alive in the deep dark places of the world. Think of all the strange flora and fauna that exists in a fantasy setting, which means that there is a wealth of adventure awaiting a scholar brave enough to go out into the world. Short adventures in different locations with a rotating party while still holding together because of the 'employers' goals might be what your after.
Firbolgs were available in a 2nd Edition splatbook making a selection of monster races playable, including centaurs as I remember, which is extremely incompatible with any adventure involving a dungeon, caving or a lot of climbing. But all the new player races introduced from 4th Edition onwards I don't like because it changes the tone of the game too much and makes most setting incoherent in terms of the plausibility of distinct species and cultures in the world, if you're required to allow all manner of outlandishness in all towns and villages because players expect "representation." Available races should reflect the world, and the specific polity and culture in which the campaign begins and where the starting adventurers would be local to. Extraplanars, or planar halfbreeds should be as rare as hen's teeth, unless the campaign is premised on there having been a huge extraplanar invasion in recent history which has resulted in such a large population of extraplanars that they and their halfbloods have become normal. Any character that requires an explanation of how someone of their race, gender and atheist faith comes to be at the inn by the church in the ordinarily devout polytheist standard human village of Pikestream, is implausible, because if they had survived such a journey, they wouldn't be 1st level with only starting equipment. And that's with being a Basic & Expert fan who loves the Hollow World and all the additional playable races-as-classes it introduces, as well as Lupins, Rakastas, Tortles and such native to the fringes of the D&D Known World. My view is that any kind of species which is going to get the party in trouble and cause the locals to point and stare and maybe gather with pitchforks isn't available as playable while the party is travelling in that area, because they can't just show up and ask the party for a job there. I always tried to write backstories bedded into the setting, after reading up, and mostly based on explaining my character creation choices in terms of skills, proficiencies and starting equipment, not trying impose any changes on the world by inventing stuff.
I stopped allowing backstories about a year or so ago. They add little to the character except for "what my character really wants" and gives everyone their own story which only works if you build a game around those backstories and you intend to run 150+ session which doesn't happen. Instead my players have to give their PC a personality and a short term ambition like learn some new spells, complete this bounty, buy a full suit of plate, and those ambitions get a bit more complex as the story emerges and they make friends and enemies. That said, I am not a big fan of megadungeons, I am playing one right no (as a player) and its ok, its fun but a bit too board gamey. I prefer overworld travel and village/town/city based quests.
I've realised that too honestly, and I think it's okay for us as Dungeon Masters to say "No Backstories." I personally like dungeons but I think Mega Dungeons are just a bit too big for me; and most of them are pretty samey and monotonous.
@@LokisLair its not just ok its expected, you are the game MASTER. If a player doesnt like it he can find another table. I havent had players leave because of that though, not yet. When i explain why they are usually like "yeah, makes sense". I agree with the dungeons part, i feature them often in my games but they we are usually done with one or two sessions with them.
I don't mind dungeons with a bit of size; maybe 20-40 rooms.. but anything more than that is might be too much for the players I seem to play with; and maybe for me too.
I wouldn't say that 5e players are any particular type, as in "5e players want the DM to mold their game around the PCs". That's common among players of many different systems, but it's not always true. I'd say it's important to find a group of players who fit your style, and vice versa. I have a group of players who very much work with me to create a shared story, but I've found many players unlike that, and i would just say our play styles don't match. Re: content bloat with all the options. There's no reason that a DM should need to remember all the rules. I lean on my players to tell me what their abilities do. That's a trust issue, so again you need players you can trust to not abuse that
Adventurers should be prepared to die, who cares if they have big ambitions and are the last of a royal bloodline and a legend told he should one day become the king that saves the land, if he dies of fever forgotten in a dungeon after a rat bite him his adventure ends there, this is how life works. And losing character in a campaign is not only to be expected but good, if everyone survives to the end they have to be either extremely skilled or extremely lucky, a campaign where everyone is supposed to survive to the end is way less meaningful, both the master and the player should expect the character not making it to the end, and if it ends in a tpk at the start of the campaign it's good too and you should be prepared to that
Sounds like you had 5E players in an old school game. I've had the same problem, modern players seem to be unable to try anything other than 5E play style so they force it into every other game.
tbh, from the sounds of it, it sounds like your Issue is 5e. You seem to have OSR sensibilities and desires, but 5e doesn't support that really, and neither does it's player base. As someone that's spent a LOT of time getting into game design beyond just homebrewing stuff, 5e is a hot mess. I think it's at it's best if you play PHB, mordenkanens, and maybe xanathar's as your only expansions. However it is made for a very particular thing. Which is to say, heroic high fantasy where the players are more or less gods amongst peasants. It's a supers game, not really a dnd game. Trying to run it as anything else just... doesn't work. There are too many core issues in the system in general, but straying from this remit causes it to collapse completely. There's not much use into looking into homebrews. I've tried. You would wind up running into so many issues that you'd be practically making a completely new system. Which at that point, you're better off just looking into other systems. To that end, I highly recommend Old School Essentials. It's all the good stuff of B/X but formatted and modernized in a far more readable format. It'll seem simplistic, especially coming from 5e, but I think if you have a tool around with that for a short adventure, maybe run your players through a funnel dungeon, you'll find you and your group getting into the swing of things in no time. That aside, as for the issues regarding backstory; That's just a modern issue, really. 3.5e and derivatives of it (such as pathfinder, and modern dnd) flipped the script when it comes to character creation. Previously, the best approach was to roll stats, pick your class based on what you got, and run your lad/lass fresh from the farm until about 5th level when they had enough staying power for you to get properly attached. If they died, you'd roll up a new one and make up some explanations for why their stats and whatnot were they way they were. Their backstory and tale of heroics was what the campain was for. More modern systems have people laboring over their characters for hours. Carefully crafting every last detail from the finest theory-crafted builds, with a fine-tuned level of control that means everything can be exactly as they wish. If their character dies, that's hours if not days of effort down the drain in an instant. It's no wonder modern players are so adverse to character death, then. They practically have the same attachment to them as a mid to high level character at level 1. As for issues telling a tale over an extended period with intermittent characters, I find it's better to attach such stories to the adventuring *party* rather than the individuals that comprise it. Have your players make a name for their little mercenary band. Individuals can gain fame, glory, and nobility, but the campain is telling the story of this particular group. This also makes character death less painful narratively. If someone leaves the group, their character can return to the base to help tutor new recruits. Same for if someone wants to swap characters. Someone joining the group is just as easily folded in, as a new recruit that's worth adding to the main team. If you want an alternative for character death, I find maiming and scarring tends to work. I.E. if someone *would* die, they instead suffer a permanent injury like a lost eye, finger, etc. not enough to have a mechanical effect unless this happens often, but enough that the character is permanently affected. It creates a kind of badge of honor to have a character that is completely scar-less by the end of a campain. Though this can royally annoy those players that are very particular about the looks of their characters. Specifically those that like to play very pretty characters.
Old-school gaming requires character goals, not character backgrounds! You need self-motivated players, not people who just want to eat chips and watch you narrate a 'story'. Seems you've mostly figured that out.
Could not agree with you more on this entire video. Pretty much wont run 5ed or a game for 5ed players who wont leave the cancerous 5ed culture wotc has made. The games are not fun the players wont adapt and become problem players all the time. OSR is only what i will play for my own setting. And They wonder why 5ed players cant find DMs for their game and 5ed over all is in massive decline in gaming cons
This video is honestly bringing up bad memories. Always remember these are 5E players they will demand to play a Dragonborn in Dragonlance just to be annoying.
Maybe I’m just being pedantic, but you aren’t the first person I’ve heard say it this way, and it annoys me. I’m referring to 10:40 when you basically say you either want a game where your choices matter, or a game where your character is probably going to survive. I find this a pretty daft frame of reference. If you look at, I don’t know, REALITY, you might notice that death is not typically a daily looming concern, but you also wouldn’t say that the choices you make in life are meaningless and don’t matter. I find it especially silly because the people who frame it this way are almost always advocating for deadly dungeons and traps and generally capricious things that are out of character control. “You rolled low on the dice, so your character doesn’t see the trap. Oh look; you rolled low on the dice again. You’ve failed your save and your character is dead,” is the diametric opposite of gameplay where your choices matter.
Well I think you may have slightly misunderstood my meaning; ie. getting caught on the semantics of my speech.. but I understand that in both styles of game, choices have to be made and these choices matter. I would just argue that choices hold more weight in a game where death is more likely.. I've seen plenty of 5e groups who brute force encounters and adventures, by charging straight in without too much thought, because they assume there won't be any consequences. I don't really see many Shadowdark or other OSR groups doing that.. I wonder why? Also, your choice of words "Daft" and "Silly" paints a picture that you are trying to demean and devalue my point of view, I hope that's not the case. Thanks for the interaction.
From and old school perspective, I'd say that if that's how you are doing traps, you're really missing out. If someone says I'm searching for traps, then yes it's a roll. But, they should say, "I carefully look at the cracks around... like we saw earlier." They asked because you telegraphed. I would give it to them without a roll.
I didn't mention traps much in the video but I don't do SAVE or DIE traps, at least not in my current games. I think telegraphing is important though, even for less deadly but still dangerous ones (especially if players have a good passive perception which is a part of 5e)
@@LokisLair that’s fine. The disrespect wasn’t aimed at you personally; just the logical extreme of the concept. Forgive my crabbiness. Like I said, this isn’t the first time I’ve encountered this turn of phrase. We all come from a certain frame of reference. I don’t play with a broad statistical sampling of 5e groups; I play with family and friends, and in spite of my relatively forgiving style of game mastering, they are cautious to the point of near decision paralysis. This is why I get annoyed by the idea that if you aren’t killing off PCs left and right, all of the tension goes out of the game. So forgive the chip on my shoulder.
@@JeffreyJibson I don’t run traps like that. I completely agree with you. If you read my other replies, you’ll see the players I play with tend to be cautious, so I use traps sparingly and telegraph a lot, because otherwise every time they move 5 feet they would be stopping to check for traps, and the whole game would bog down, lol.
Definitely a personal subject for me today. I hope you enjoyed me talking a bit more openly about my games and experiences as a Dungeon Master. I didn't do a call to action in the video but if you like the videos I make, consider liking the video and subscribing to the channel.. I really appreciate all the support, thanks guys!
Really good video!
Thank you!@@harmen4750
Good video. Are you planning on trying alternate RPG systems to D&D.
I run a Shadowdark game on Sundays now and it's a lot better. Not just the system but the players I'm getting as well.@@FreyaBastet
It’s your campaign dude. You can end it any time you want. No explanation required. Done and done!
I like how you’re just talking about problems openly here. A lot of dms act like they are omniscient but we’re all learning!
You're damn right! I was a bit nervous about being so open, I know that some people are very devout to their views in regards to D&D; but I really wanted to be honest with my personal experiences, because I'm hoping viewers will gain value from it.
Its better to have a emergent story take place as a result of dice rolls and the players reaction to these events. Also encouraging an open table type of style, where the players that show up for the session are the ones that are present and anyone missing from last session is just back at the camp, helps ending the session where the party is heading back to town or their camp from the adventuring site. Trust me this stops so many weird situations of needing x player cause they had the map, nah that kinda stuff is just stored in the party loot after the session.
That's fair and I agree; I think emergent story telling is a lot better.
Couple thoughts:
There is an RPG where you play as kids, but they can't die. They can get conditions that take them out of the game where they're hurt, scared, freaking out, etc. but action never escalates to the point where the kids die. That might be a better model for the heroic fantasy second-life type of play you were talking about. That way there is an actual game with actual stakes, but the player's dragonborn waifu isn't in any actual peril of death.
Second, I think modern players have a very difficult time with old school mega-sandboxes. For one thing, there isn't as much demand for this style of play because there are video games where you can play in a huge sandbox whenever you want. People don't generally play D&D every day like they did in the 70s, where it's the only simulated reality they're interacting with, so there just isn't as much need for giant dungeons for them to get lost in. Often they get frustrated with that style of play because it takes a really long time in terms of weekly or monthly sessions to navigate those dungeons.
Yeah short term vs long term gratification. Thanks for commenting pal!
True, but the alternative is every dm needs to be a novel writer.
@@archersfriend5900not exactly a novel writer. All the character interactions take place at the table. All the dm needs is a basic idea of who the characters (NPCs) are, what they want, and how they are trying to get it. The players then get to decide what they support or oppose and how. Or, you know, you can use WotC’s giant books that totally always go exactly the way their authors envisioned them, honest…
I think the Darling Character model isn't just inherent in the cultural model for 5e but in the system itself. Between backgrounds, subclasses, and skills, you end up spending a lot of time creating a character. If they die, you have to have a new character ready to queue up for play; I'd hate to roll up one at the table. For a lot of the OSR games I've seen so far (I've really only played around with a handful so correct me if I'm wrong), rolling a new character is more or less trivial. Trying *not* to get attached, then getting attached in spite of your reluctance because you've experienced all these victories and failures and near-misses... you can't cheat your way to that with an elaborate backstory on Day 1.
The people I play with barely fill out most of those things.
The darling character crap comes from point buy systems and too many choices for the player. Roll your stats, roll your race, roll your background THEN choose your class. Making all those random outcomes into a cohesive form creates the backstory for the character.
@@aaronabel4756 lighten up man. If you play ttrpgs 4 days a week and have done so for the last 30 years, I get why it wouldn’t matter to you what kind of character you roll up. This is especially true if you’re just playing the game as a tactical simulation.
For most players, they are involved in one game which meets once or twice a month, and it still represents a huge time commitment. The idea that they want to create a character that they find appealing is not crazy. If you want to make decisions for your faceless stat chart, that’s fine. You don’t have to deride other styles of play.
@@NewnodrogbobThe process I described is for role play characters, NOT tactical min/max, metagaming build obsessed players. If you want to play with a focus on tactics then rolling stats, background and race is probably the worst idea, and there are better games than D&D 5e for that style of play. If your first character isn't something you can see playing, roll another, it takes very little time.
@@aaronabel4756 I know what you’re describing. My old ass read that process when it was published in BECMI like, 40 years ago. (I know it predates BECMI.) They developed that system when the game was basically: roll up a stat block. Run your stat block through a gauntlet (dungeon) and see how long it survives. It’s the legacy of the game being the fantasy supplement to the chain mail medieval miniatures combat rules.
They modified the procedure /made it explicitly optional almost as soon as the game was in the wild. Can you roll a random character, select an eligible class (fighter if your stats suck!) and then give it the whole community theater treatment? Sure. Most of the people who want to do lots of role play don’t want to build a character at random. The folks who do are generally the guys who just want to march their star block through a gauntlet and see what loot they win.
Min/max doesn’t even enter into it. There weren’t really “builds” in the first edition of the game, and you don’t need to min/max a build to play the game as a combat simulator.
I’m blessed. I only play face to face with my friends, most of whom played AD&D back in the day and so completely ‘get’ old school gaming. I play 5th but, just like you, I ban lots of the races and options that don’t fit into my world. I crank up the difficulty of the encounters by at least 20% and don’t allow long rests, except back in civilisation. Works for us.
Great video. I completely understand how you feel. I totally agree about content bloat in 5e. Recently been getting into DCC and just recently picked up Shadowdark. I'm now very torn about which one to run in my next campaign. I have a regular Wednesday night 5e group that has been playing for 3 years now. That campaign is finally nearing its end and as much fun as we've had I'm looking forward to running something that is not 5e.
You got this!
5e has gotten to the point where it is absolutely essential to limit the amount of expansion material.
You could start your next campaign with a Guantlet/funnel. Take away their apprehension about the possibility of character death by desensitizing them out of the gate. Then, they have an investment in that level-0 that survived a harrowing journey and has a built in backstory.
Also. Olde Swords Reign or ShadowDark are 5e adjacent, but allow for quicker play (and character creation) and less player facing power options.
Yeah I'll probably do that at some point; and yeah I run Shadowdark games these days and it's delightful. Thank you for your advice though, I think gauntlets are the way to go.
I also like the idea of funnels
Half the time it just traumatizes them, especially 5e players.
I tried writing big, story-based campaigns, and it brought me around to some of the things you’re saying. I listened to some ideas from the RPG Pundit about starting with characters determined at random to increase immersion, and he made some interesting points.
Rolling random stats and random character background can give a player the sense that his character isn’t an ordained protagonist. With such a system, he argues, the character feels like an organic part of the setting. It’s easier for the player to immerse into the character’s role if he’s not trying to tell the story himself.
I’ve found some merit to the idea, and I’ve taken to allowing the dice to provide character background and natural ability. Maybe it’s more natural for me because I have acting experience, and actors don’t get to choose character backgrounds. Either way, I’ve enjoyed playing that way, and it does discourage Main Character Syndrome.
I've always been restrictive on creation for primarily that reason. Personally, it wasn't with 5e with me, it was Pathfinder 1e. All that bloat is ridiculous. I just run my games with the D&D Rules Cyclopedia. I run sandboxes. I don't write stories. My players do. Let me explain that. My players have a very basic "this is my family, this is what I did before adventuring". After that, I give them the "title" of the book, plop them down in a town, and just let them go from there. They're still restricted to the rules and classes and races I put in place, but from those restrictions comes a level of play that I'll simply expand upon. "Okay, my Lawful Cleric is talking to this obviously Evil Cleric". Me: *takes a note and put it in my pocket.* I also allow them to have a stable of PCs. Maybe they don't want to play a Fighter today. I allow just enough freedom to never railroad anyone. I just take the "thinking out loud" stuff my players will do and tune into that to slap in a hex somewhere. Tim Kask once said: we give you the title, you write the story. And that approach has helped me. Not a lot of preplanning. Just some maps, a few encounter tables I've made, some NPCs drawn up and just go.
Then don't use 5e. Running another system is easier then changing dozens of rules to fit the type of game you want to use. Of course if it works for you it's fine, but at least consider trying other systems that don't have so much bloat
Brother Loki. I agree fully in playing shadowdark for these style of games over 5e. The game of shadowdark is made for these old school scenarios.
Loving all the chatter on here. Good to talk openly about this sorta stuff. There's always going to be a bit of give-and-take when it comes to players and the dm, but sometimes it's just a bit too big of a divide. Happens and life moves on, but as you say, clear session 0 helps prevent it being too bad.
I liked this video because it describes issues I think many DMs, to include myself, have faced. The eternal struggle of playing DnD as a whimsical second life or a dramatic game is very real. The debate that all started with OG Dragonlance. Its especially hard to share these personal stories because I know when I’ve shared my own personal stories of truly deserved TPKs or events it seems to open a can of worms with people generally coming out of the woodwork to take the players side. At the end of the day you just need to find players and a game that aligns to your style. You could still play 5E but just have players with a different mindset and suddenly have a very refreshing game.
Its a learning experience to also find that people who spend hours on their characters, especially on detailed and long character backgrounds you never asked for, tend to be so attached that while Raise Dead is a possibility; I find they would rather just leave the campaign instead. Better to have more of a background for established characters. That way it’s even more dramatic and hilarious when they start saying how they are gonna get married after the war and suddenly die in the same session.
Yeah honestly I think more people need to defend DMs, it's not easy out there to actually run these kinds of games; It's exhausting.
What you are describing is literally the definition of a sandbox. Player driven gameplay and emergent storytelling are the key to success. Also, the module was originally intended to award XP for treasure OSR style, and that alone is motivation to keep coming back, especially if you kept draining the party coffers through hirelings and services in the surrounding settlements and the occasionally unbalanced bandit encounter (your GP or your HP!).
Excellent video and a topic I relate to fully as a fellow "unicorn" type player and a DM. I believe it is imperative to establish the importance of the setting over the ruleset being used. The Setting in my opinion is the most important part of the game and it needn't be the sole purview of the DM, but rather the responsibility of the entire table to create and bring to life. Not to bash the games of the WotC & Paizo Era but these games have devolved into a muddy, mucky kitchen sink of a soup that is completely unrecognizable as Fantasy. I believe we should begin a campaign simply and cleave more closely to Myth, Folklore and Fantasy literature before introducing the more unconventional elements such as "Tabaxi, Tieflings, Half Orcs and other "monster type" PC heritages. And then only after the DM has modified and tailored them to fit in sensibly with the established World Setting. The DM is a player too and when I play a character in the DM's setting I relish playing in such a way that validates and acknowledges the DM's creative input and vision.
"Myth, folklore and Fantasy Literature", you sir are a man after my own heart. I completely agree that this should be the focus. Thanks for commenting.
Dude, this was a great video. As a long time GM I encounter all the same challenges and it’s refreshing to hear another share their perspective. The GM is a player too! Anyway, appreciate your candour and authenticity, Really do.
Glad you enjoyed!
I ended a one year long 5e campaign when I realized that 5e just didn’t work with the game I was trying to run. With more experience I found that I needed another system to make it work and have been running Cairn since and it works fantastic!
I really hope it all worked out well for you.
@LokisLair you sounds like you're doing a great job and you're figuring out the important things. I think the biggest issue is players that think their characters are the most important thing at the table, both in the game and in reality.
The most important thing at the table is that everyone is there to put aside individual agendas and pursue collaborative agendas to have fun.
Sorry to hear your Campaign died. As a old Grognard, hearing you talk about players driving their characters into a campaign is an alien concept to me. While having fun is the primary goal, my players have always understood: my table, my rules. Your character will fit into my world and I see fit. I once saw the Barrowmaze approached as the clearing of the mines of Moria. The goal was the complete clearing of the dungeon and the players were good with that. Thanks for the bit of intimate sharing.
Happy to share and good to see you Marcus.
Excellent video and commentary. I'm sorry you had a bad experience, but it sounds like you did all that was possible to make the campaign successful. It seems like too many players today want to be superheroes right out of the gate, and want they game to be tailor made to keep them happy. I started in the Olden Days, Holmes Blue Box Basic, then quickly went to AD&D 1st. Edition. We lost players quickly and often. If the dice were not kind to us, or if we made too many stupid choices, then we just rolled up another character, and were back playing in 5 minutes. Actions had consequences, and we learned to work together to overcome enemies and obstacles. None of us complained that the DM was being too hard on us. In fact, we usually rotated being DM, and we all ran games and campaigns hard core. And, because we all DMed at times, we knew, and know, how much work goes into making a successful game, let alone a successful campaign. DM's work hard to get a game or campaign up and running, whether it's a store-bought module, or a homebrew adventure. This is why we still play 1st. Edition. Yes, you can homebrew 5E to make it more deadly, but it seems that the 5E players that show up don't really think they'll have a real chance of character death. And, they tend to whine a lot, because, and I quote "I spend weeks creating this character and the backstory! It's not fair! Why can't I reroll?" When I bring new players into our group, we usually go back and play a beginner-level adventure, and they can see that not just their characters can die, but anyone who is playing. And they see how the experienced players handle it, create another character, and go back to having fun playing. Heck, I lost the strongest character I ever rolled up only 15 minutes into a campaign, then, since there was no way they could haul my body out of the swamp and afford anyone to Raise Dead, watched them loot my character's body (admittedly not a lot of loot: he WAS a brand new character). I rolled up another character, the DM arranged for my character to meet the party later in the adventure, and away we went. You keep playing and DMing the way you know is right. If you lose some of those whiners, the ones who stay will make the game great.
Fantastic comment mate. I would of loved to have played the game back in the day.. it sounds so raw and real.. a learning experience and one you’re doing together as a team rather than alone.
Hey, I'm still bringing people into AD&D. I've stocked up a pretty respectable library of multiple copies of the Monster Manual, Players Handbook, Dungeon Masters Guide, etc. and I'm using it to let my newbies borrow them and learn the game. Some are kinda bummed when they lose a character, but they see the veteran players lose them too, so they generally tough it out and roll up another one. We prefer to play in person, but we might have to pull you into a campaign via the internet one day. :-) Keep up the great work, and don't get down. Good Things are coming!@@LokisLair
I needed to hear this thank you. I see some of... allot of what you talked about in some of the games I have been attached to and/or currently playing. :)
Glad it was helpful!
I currently play in an AD&D 1e open table game where character death happens almost every other session. We’ve had around 150 characters total and I think we are close to 100 dead. Just last session we lost a character after he unleashed some kind of extraplanar time entity from imprisonment in a wizards tower.
As players, we come to expect death and set up stables of up to 5 characters that we can introduce on the fly to keep the game going in case one of ours dies. Xp is gained quickly even though we always start at level 1 and our characters are rolled using any method we want in the DMG, so we can end up with high stats. Doesn’t matter though, the chance for death is the same for any character.
It is possible to have a character survive by usual luck of the dice or just careful role playing. If you stop and look for traps carefully you may find that spiked pit or poison gas valve. It produces some awesome moments where we survive against the odds and overcome some amazing obstacles, like destroying a green dragon because we all worked together, got the initiative and dropped some lightning bolt spells on it. On the other hand I lost two character in one session because of taking poor risks and getting poisoned.
The reason I mention this is maybe it could be a style of gaming you’d like to run, it’s more popcorn and dice rather than unfolding the epic story to save the world and see your character become a god. No backstory investment, your characters experiences in game is the backstory. Though you can get invested should your character survive beyond say level 5 or so, when your wealth has grown to some extent and you can pay for a Raise Dead spell.
Some other points I’d like to mention, another game im in using OSE has briefly delved into Barrowmaze. I desperately want to go check it out but I cannot get the rest of the party to get on board with it. They only want to return to the safety of town and explore other parts of the world. I agree that Barrowmaze needs some kind of enticing hooks to lure us. Like a BBEG that emerges and does something to royally piss off the party.
I've had a lot of the same situations as a games master, but thankfully I've learnt how to communicate what I want versus what the players want to play.
I consider myself to be a very collaborative player, so if you're ever in need of someone who will work with you rather than against you, count me in
I've come back to the hobby since I used to DM a lot in the 1980's. I like 5e in some ways, particularly the emphasis on actually roleplaying your characters, and I love having stories that are big sweeping sagas. However, I'm also a huge fan of dark fantasy like Robert E. Howard, particuarly Conan and Solomon Kane. I keep seeing a lot of arguments that the DM is there to service the players within the story, or that characters shouldn't die. To me this is kind of like playing a video game on easy mode. There is no real payoff when you finally beat the BBEG. So, I've started adding third party stuff into my game like the Epic Encounter boxes from Steamforge Games, and I ask my players to bring backup characters just in case. I want combat to feel grim, hard fought, and the victories well-earned. Not only should character death be possible, but weighty and important, and a part of the larger story. I guess it's a balancing act between wanting my players to have as much fun as possible, and making the game feel risky, which I totally think is doable as long as the players know what kind of game you are running beforehand.
To be fair, there’s a world of difference between “the characters are unlikely to die.” And “it’s impossible for the characters to fail.” In most video games you can die repeatedly and keep trying with the same character. You don’t get the same reset in a ttrpg. Most people don’t enjoy losing. The more you play, the more you tend to enjoy the journey and accept a wider range of possible outcomes. Some people are just immediately cool with the idea of both failure and death for their character. Most people aren’t. I’m pretty sure if you did a survey of games in the 80’s, they’d find there was a lot less character death going on than everybody likes to pretend. I mean, they didn’t put in spells to raise the dead because no one ever wanted their character back…
@@Newnodrogbob Like I said, it's balancing act. One of the main differences between AD&D and 5e is that there were very few long term campaigns in AD&D, with the possible exeptions of Temple of Elemental Evil and Dragonlance. I remember there being a lot of character death going on then, but people were less invested in their characters because the adventures were much shorter, which I guess is Loki's point in this clip. I'm all for longer campaigns myself, just not without some kind of risk.
Great video. I have been running Barrowmaze as a West Marches and have been enjoying it albeit with Old School players accustomed to character death.
I like the new video. I think your experience is enlightening, as is most of your content you gave me a lot of things to think about so thank you
Glad to hear it! People like you really motivate me to continue making videos. Thanks.
Hey Loki! This was such a great video. You’ve perfectly put into words what tends to happen to my 5e games. They’re something I don’t like to prep or run because of the complexity, and the systems don’t really support my preferred method of gaming.
I guarantee if your players had been told that gold = xp like BX they’d be hunting down every last piece in the dungeon. I find that player motivation and character attachment are the two things that kill my modern games compared to old school ones and you hit both of those nails on the head in this video.
Thank you for the kind words. Honestly I’m a bit sad to make this video but I’m glad I’m not alone lol
@@DemiosOctavo or you can play an rpg to have a sense of progression and story and meaningfully develop your character knowing they aren’t going to permanently die.
One of the things I have done was use a campaign as a “dream sequence” when the players were not positive they were going to be able to play regularly. Once I had a core set of players for the story I had in mind for all of us to tell….. I began in earnest.
It helped with lore building for the story. I’ve also utilized all of the “races” as “humans” with special characteristics that shift to say Tabaxi or teiflings under certain like those dream sequences. I had to home brew some different “freebie” feats that allowed shifting in the “real world” to show their true nature, which lead to gifting and creating other feats, as the story progressed, that were not OP but gave a boost and added to their flavor……. My favorite feat I created was called Parting the veil, which is essentially disguise self that allowed the players to be seen as the fantastical species for a period of time outside of the dream scape.
I think I've had a very similar experiences with player expectations, and I've also landed on trying shorter adventures going forward. I hope you find a style and format that feels right for you. The GM needs to be having fun too.
Thanks man. Good luck with your games.
Thank you for this video. I appreciate all the transparency.
Thanks man!
D&D has a lot of reach still. I’m no longer drawn to it personally and for a long time now Rolemaster has been my game of choice as a player and a GM.
Very cool. Best of luck with your games!
Excellent advice, as always. For my next start up, I'll lay it all out up front: my campaign will be a dungeoncrawl where your goal is to accumulate XP and treasure. I'll make adjustments to the RAW for whatever system I'll be running, so even if it is 5e, it's not going to be the same as other campaigns your buddies ran for you. I will provide pregenerated characters with backgrounds and everything for the players to choose from, just like acting in a play. Nobody got the role of Richard III in Macbeth. I'll describe what my world is like so that there won't be any crying about playing a half-tortle half-tabaxi Rogue/ Artificer/ demi-god. Your motivation is rolling dice, killing monsters and evading traps, and accumulating wealth to retire as a local baron somewhere in my game world. That said, I have no issue tweaking the game to pique player interest. I just won't change everything to satisfy that one player. I also need to enjoy the game.
This sounds fantastic George, good luck!
@@LokisLair Welcome to join of course, though the difference in timezones would make this problematic.
Depends when you're running; I don't really want to commit to any night time gaming anymore.
@@LokisLair I'm -6 UTC, so an evening game for me is overnight for you. Maybe if I ran one Sunday morning or something I'd drop an invite.
This video hits home on so many different points for me. When you start a group and select or design a campaign you have to make choices about which ways you want to go concerning the paradigms you've outlined.
Sandbox vs Longform story
Episodic vs Narrative Storyline
Survival Fantasy/Horror vs Heroic Fantasy
OSR/Old school vs Modern D&D/fantasy
These are often hard choices to make, and you have to be on the same page as your players. And you are 100% correct about bringing your improv A-game to the table.
Example: In my homebrew 5e sandbox campaign, I threw in a portal to hell as a side quest. But it's a homebrew world that I wanted to be distinct from the D&D lore/planar cosmology. So I then had 2 weeks to design Hell. One of the encounters in hell was the Astral River, a way of travelling the underworld and connecting different planes. Of course, one of my characters stuck his head in it and got sucked in and spat out into the Astral Sea. And his comrades after a brief debate jumped in after him. Great. Nevermind what I had prepared in Hell. Now we get to explore the Astral Sea.
My own fault really, but the adventure was supposed to be a murder mystery in a small village. Long story short, they opened the portal and left it open behind them as they were lost for 3 months game time. Demons came out and ate everyone's babies. So when they got back, the party rallied a force of mercenaries and demonslayers and declared war on the demon lord. The campaign ended when they destroyed the portal and the ruined temple they were standing in. None of this was predetermined. Multiple endings were possible. A total of 7 players and numerous NPCs died in regular combat and exploration throughout the campaign. No punches pulled. And it all started from a little one-off adventure hook in the middle of a sandbox hexcrawl campaign.
Sticking to predesigned narrative or content is a choice that you have to recognize only works with a certain type of group for a certain type of game. Improvisation, changing plans, designing on the fly are the alternative to that choice.
Fudging outcomes, dice rolls and quantum ogres is also a choice. I prefer not doing it.
A sandbox game doesn't need a predetermined story. If you add leads and allow your players to make actual decisions that have actual consequences, it will lead to truly emergent storytelling.
That campaign honestly sounded fantastic and I hope to one day play in a game like that.
I have a long string of abandoned campaigns so I strongly agree with the short form, episodic style.
The error I see is trying to create a story of the campaign. Have a story of the location or the world and then let the players discover that but don’t try and lay out the story of the characters.
I think if players (and Dm) want a lot of player input and control then they need to be assisting creating the world and mating out the campaign not just their own characters. D&D literature doesn’t encourage this but you can import these ideas from games like Microscope or The Quiet year.
Greetings Loki! This is a terrific topic to discuss @ the start of 2024. A spectrum of great games rooted from the essence & love of our hobby has emerged. And with playing new games & trying older ones, we've learned to identify preferences in settings & game styles. From crunchy story driven players to rules light risk taking survivalists, death on the table is a tug-of-war & is ultimately unveiling our players & what they are truly looking for in a game. Some are mad that combat takes too long @ higher levels & some are mad for dying every session @ low levels.
I've come to terms with long campaigns not working for me. After investing a year in a game as a player, then having health issues & having to miss out on monumental events, I've decided my games need to be stacks of one-shots. This way I can create back stories from level 0 during gameplay. Based on players motives & creativity, I can customize and switch up the next one-shot to support the direction the way the players lead. I love to hack & slash my mechanics from multiple systems, so why not do that for my players adventures. If they can survive to the next one-shot or if we decide to take a break & try a different game for a session or so, I take creative responsibility for tieing it all together seamlessly for their story development. And if it goes a year, cool, and if we have an emergency shut down, it'll be ok because one-shots have great stopping points. This video faces the realest side of todays gaming & I think your amazing for breaking things down for us to analyze together. Cheers to you Loki!
My one-shots aren't really in one session, they are actually 2-6 sessions, so I should say "modules". Maybe if I did a 12 hour session, I could go through it in one shot.
Cheers pal! Glad you liked the video.
Just say no to backstories :) About a paragraph should cover a level 0-1. I think part of the issue with player attachment to characters, is the perception of a win state. The win state IMO is role play. Save or die mechanics and or deadly encounters, will sweeten the experience IF the character lives, which is often overlooked.
For all the reasons you mentioned and showed type on the bottom of the video, is why I don't play in groups much anymore.
I'm sorry to hear that; at least you know you're not alone in many of your thoughts and views.
I actually had a similar experience the first time I tried to run my Barrowmaze campaign. The module is great, but it requires players to give in a bit an be willing to play that sort of game.
Yeah it's definitely a change of pace and I think it's far better suited to old-school players, especially the older generation who played in the 70s and 80s.
@@LokisLair Absolutely. There is a fair amount of content on UA-cam about preparing DMs to run OSR games after running 5e, but not as much content for how to prepare players.
OMG TRUE! Maybe this would be a good video idea.
I really like how pathfinder empowers GM to limit players options. Everything in the system habe rarity tags. And those tags are made with "does this fit classic fantasy?" mindset, and they are only useful for GMs to limit player's access to them. If GM wants to play a very basic setting without a need to adjust anything to PF2e's loore, they can just allow players to use everything with common tag and nothing else.
For example, Wizards, Fighters (classes), Humans, Elfs (ancestries), Greatswords, Bows (items), Magic Missle (Force Barrage in remaster, spells), Wrestlers and Acrobats (archetypes) and are common.
Nephilim (Aasimar of pf2e), Undines, Catfolks, Gnolls (Heritages/Ancestries), Gunslingers (Classes), Battle Lute, Katar (items), Torturous trauma (spells), Soulforgers and Bullet Dancers (archetypes) are uncommon.
Beastkins, Skeletons, Fleshwarps, Sprites (Heritages/Ancestries), Exemplars (Classes), Clockwork Macuahuitl (items), String of Fate (spells), Chronoskimmers, Curse Mealstorms and Clockwork Reanimators (archetypes) are rare.
It doesn't mean Rare or Uncommon things are stronger than Common ones. They are just less common, more unique and weird. Overall system seems to be designed with game masters in mind... which is honestly a breath of fresh air
I like that pf2e comes with the expectations that it's the gm's game and they can allow or forbid whatever they want. Maybe if 5e was made with that in mind we wouldn't have the animosity so commonly seen towards DMs on social media
@@vehemetipolygoniae2197 5e is essentially made for players only. DMG is the most useless GM book in existence
I played RPGs for 30+ years. I might not have been around for the really old school days. But I was certainly around for AD&D and I played D&D 1st with the old school dudes. And I can assure you that even back then many DMs realized and took into account that character deaths have downsides and are detrimental to certain kinds of playstyles and experiences. We do things like this a lot. Look at history and forget about all the nuances and look just at the main stream. Or in this case at what we think was the main stream, because it seems to be because if we look at the supplements from back then it seems to be.
You can`t run a weekly 5 year campaign with a character death every other session. Or at least you shouldn`t. If long arcs are your goal you need long lifespans. Otherwise another character will end the quest than started it. And this becomes especially bad if none of the orginal characters is still around. This is common knowledge among veterans. And kind of the same thing you concluded. If you want it deadly go for short campaigns.
But I would strongly advice against a 5 year campaign arc anyway. It`s just too ambitious. Players will become fathers (or still less often mothers), move because of job situation, finish their studies, get sick (or healthy), get girlfriends, get new hobbies... 5 year commitments are huge. And hard to keep.
My approach to the hobby these days is twofold:
One-Shots for fun and to experiment. And to learn new skills for the table. If you play a few successful one-shots you will realize how much story and fun could actually fit into one session. Now I have a ton of examples. But the first one-shot I ever gamemastered after I learned the name was last year. And I managed to put an entire pirate-treasurehunt storyarc into 4 hours. Including rivaling pirates, a naval battle, a sword fight, ... And at moments like this you start to wonder why long standing campaigns often are so slow paced. Which is often one thing that can ruin the fun. And you can learn from one-shots how to run sessions in a good way.
Long standing campaigns which are a mixture of sandboxes and detailed planned adventures and scenarios within the sandbox.
And my approach to campaigns is this:
I have a somewhat detailed plan for next session. Not in the sense that I know exactly what I will do all the time. But in the sense that I will throw some exciting things at the player and look how they will react. And if they ignore them (for now) that`s fine too. Because usually they ignore them because they have something more interesting left from previous sessions. But I aim at either a cliff hanger or a conclusion for the end of every session.
I have a plan for the season / the chapter. The next few months of the campaign are somewhat laid out. And there are mid term goals to be achieved when the chapter ends.
I have a very vague plan for the upcoming chapters. And when the current chapter reaches it midway point I will lay the groundwork to promote the next chapter. Subtle.
And I have a definitive plan for the end of the campaign. And several exit points. At the end of every chapter I ask myself if I want to continue and for how long.
I see a good analogy for tv shows. You want every session to be relevant and reasonable paced. You want every season to have its own story arc. And they should all tell a big story with a good ending when the last season is ending. That`s a tall order for a RPG campaign. But by just aspiring into this direction your campaigns will become so much better.
The end of a campaign is not a tragedy. It can be a really great experience actually. But if you invested a lot into a campaign and it ends on a low note and fizzles out or goes with a bang in a huge fight... that sucks.
During the severe phase of covid I gamemastered a 3 year Star Wars campaign. Nearly every week we gathered at our VTT and played. And when the main quest came to an end I ended it. The players wanted to go on. But I stood firm. Everyone told a story how he envisioned the non-adventure end of his characters life. And it felt incredibly satisfying. There was an element of grief. But it so rare to have a satisfying ending that I took the chance.
Sure enough one of the players took another job which would have ended his commitment to the group and the other one left the country for a different time zone. All within a few months after we decided to conclude the campaign. Would have really sucked to open another chapter without the ability to wrap the campaign up on a high note.
My players fall into the "Expect the GM to present the path to us" category, rather than embracing the sandbox and taking their own initiative. It's a mix of good and bad. As a GM I can prep a session and pretty much feel safe I am not wasting my time and my players won't decide to wander off to spend the session travelling south instead of north just because they felt like it leaving me to improv an entire session of content.
On the other hand, I don't get any surprises, I have to drive the session, and it's hard to craft things that I know will interest the players because they seldom take initiative, narrative control, or show interest in things on their own.
I had to kill a group that was starting at 11pm as well. I get up at 6am on weekdays for work, so it became too hard for me to be awake enough by 1am Sunday morning to be running a game. I ended up killing off that group.
I gave said group a flintlock pistol and gunpowder recently in their last dungeon; they didn't even bother with it. It was pretty sad tbh lol.
@LokisLair haha. Luckily in the Symbaroum game I am currently running had a player take more of an interest in a mundane ancestral sword pulled off an undeads they destroyed. I came up with some ideas that should produce some side-content for a few sessions. Maybe I am finally getting them to take interest in things on their own.
I totally get where you’re coming from. I feel like modern DND has become very player centric. In my last campaign I bent over backwards as far as race and class allowances and writing pages and pages of material to integrate character backstories into the campaign (with player input at their request) and then a couple sessions in I had a player drop out because he felt I was railroading him…not an ounce of thought for how much of my work was now just going to be thrown away and rewritten.
Lol i've dealt with that before; and if I'm honest, I'm pretty done with it. I think I just want to focus on running my adventures and having exciting moments, I don't want to worry as much about backstory, etc.
Perhaps the problem is essentially one of expectations. A DM is tasked by the ttrpg with a few jobs:
1. Simulating a fantasy/sci-fi/horror world where it's interesting to be a player
2. Adjudicating the outcomes of the players choices.
3. Thoughtfully portraying the inhabitants of that world with enthusiasm.
In contrast, it seems that I occasionally hear players are trying to get the DM to write and direct a TV series where they are the only important cast members(and they each think are sleeping with the producer, and can have their way constantly).
It's important to remind the players that:
1. This is a Game, outcomes aren't guaranteed, and each person's choices affect everyone's fun.
2. It's a game you're all playing together, so anyone being a self-centered jerk is doing it wrong, and might need a reminder, or to find another activity if they can't act right.
3. Everyone at the table is there for a leisure activity. Only fun for non-DM players is not how this works.
Side note: If people are paying the DM to play the game with them, then they are paying the DM to Play. If they don't think they should pay someone to have fun with them, then that's their problem, not the hobby's.
One way to add choice to player death is to let the player chose between some sort of maiming or permament debuff.. Or some sort of heroic act of "you are also going down".
I’ve had players who would rather die than lose a limb.. but yeah it does sometimes work.
nice vid reflecting on a campaign. sometimes thing don't work out the way we would like. Player expectation can be very challenging. especially if you are not playing with a group you have run for before. PCs die in my games (i run modules, currently age of worms and RHOD) luckily i have never had a player get very upset about it, although it always sucks in the moment. I don't do session zero. i have an onboarding document when im ready to run a game. it says the general idea and theme and highlights any particular rules i want to run by. people can decide if they want to play or not based off the document. sometimes i don't run a game because the group is not interested in that kind of game. that's ok. looking forward to your next vid.
Thanks man, appreciate the feedback.
I have a campaign I am running where there is a megadungeon. The players level up when they reach a next level of the dungeon, and they know this. Best way to encourage player to explore the dungeon. They literally know how and when they level up, even if it isn't experience based.
Sorry, too here about the game. We just ended our 3 year game as well in KotB game. TPK got it. Now I’m trying to put together a Pirate campaign which I’m never ran. Definitely using Shadowdark as I move forward or what we call (5e Basic). Still keeping the grit and danger.
Yeah I'm thinking something naval for my next game with my Saturday lot; Isle of Dread seems to appeal.
Really enjoyed this one and if say everything you said is both well thought out and fair.
I tried to be so I appreciate the fact you noticed. After all, I'm not trying to alienate players who want a different game to me.. I think it's important to understand and embrace our differences.. that's what makes our hobby so great.
@@LokisLair I've mentioned this before, but I'm completely new to this, I'm not a part of the hobby so to speak I just grew up in the 90's, read and heard about d&d and fantasized about one day being able to play it. Life went on and I never did, as a grown man with a family I saw a starter set at a store and I said screw it let me have a look at this, got on UA-cam and looked at all the usual channels and what they were playing didn't seem to match what I had envisioned, obviously a far cry from what I guess we'd call "old school" d&d from my youthful memories. Took me a while to find other channels, such as yours, to find what more closely resembled what it would be like to play.
I've still never played the game but I dm for my kids and my sister and brother in law, we do our best but I have to tone back the "grim dark" I want for my players, I hope to one day both play the game and dm for some people that are a little more engrossed and enthused at the idea of ttrpgs. Love your work loki.
@@VicSicily that’s amazing, thanks for sharing. Glad people like you have found the channel. Hope you get the opportunity to play soon!
Ive ran many campaigns and one shots that featured the barrowmaze and i found this to be true about all of Greg Gillespies megadungeons. These settings are like soup stock, theyre a great vase to start from but you need to inject a lot of directions and story hooks to make it a rich campaign.
Glad I'm not the only one to think that; his stuff is fantastic but it doesn't change the facts.
I think mega-dungeons aint for a clear story but for exploration and a challenge alone . Either the Megadungeon can be visited often which gives players a clear goal to to explore one floor per visit. Stronger and better prepared than before .
Other point to megadungeons are that not every path should be opened up. Every path should have their own merits and dangers too that even replaying that dungeon aint boring even after the 5th or 6th try with different characters .
Overall are megadungeons either more an own campaign itsself or sonething like the endgame to see how far these legendary heroes can explore till death comes without a warning .
Even i looked often at megadungeons and try to understand how those should work which my results are that megadungeons are challenges for the player while the DM can unleash the dangers that haunt these halls .
I prefer megadungeons as the huge challenge when my players wanna have less of a short adventure and more an immersive challenge to test out their with , strengths and abilities .
Play style, setting and tone (and I think the way you handle character death is an important part of that) should definitely be the first things to be discussed. Even before you get everyone together for a session zero, I think you should at least roughly be on the same page about this. What good does it do for anyone if one person wants to play heroic fantasy with heavy plot armour and someone else wants a leathal dungeon crawl? But it can be really hard to communicate that. So many people in this hobby either forget, or have never realized, that ttrpgs are as varied as board games. Actually, there probably even more varied, since two tables can play the same system and have two completely different play styles. Most people just seem to assume, that their play style is what all ttrpgs are.
May I suggest winter's daughter, the hole in the oak and incandescent Grottoes by Gavin norman. Also nightmare over ragged hollow by Joe Lewis (merry mushmen). I feel these adventures may fit what your looking for.
I'll take a look, thanks!
I haven't tried to run D&D in quite a while. Right now, I'm running Call of Cthulhu, but if I were to run a fantasy game, I'd definitely run Shadowdark. It's the best bridge between 5e and OSR that I've seen.
It really is.
We GMs just have to give ourselves a break once in a while. Go out and take a walk, sleep a lot, eat well. I really like your videos although I GM Blades in the Dark and although I don’t have made very good experience with oldschool or sandbox campaigns. Keep up the good work. My all your rolls be sixes 😇
Good video. People who are used to story-based roleplaying are going to be attached to their characters like they would be if they were reading a high fantasy novel or watching an epic fantasy film. Even though there is some character continuity in heroic fantasy (Sword and Sorcery) which a lot of OSR is based on, death and the gritty nature of the genre are fairly large elements that should pervade every aspect of telling or roleplaying that story.
There was another channel I follow where the video creator was creating Shadowdark characters and he rolled several 1s for hitpoints. I don't see a problem with having only 1 hitpoint. It means you're going to need to use every other rule to your advantage that you can: avoid combat and be extra careful to avoid traps. In fact, a 1 hit point character probably wouldn't take certain risks in the first place. But a lot of people have gotten twisted up thinking that rpgs are primarily combat simulations. (D&D thinking, unfortunately). So of course if the game is a combat simulation, 1 hitpoint is going to seem like a bit of a burden because that character will likely not survive combat. So the character will need to focus on something else besides combat. Many OSRs will reward that character's player with innovative play (ACKS has several experience rewards tied to gaining of treasure, trading, and creating magic items, researching, and more). D&D seems to primarily only award experience rewards for combat and story completion.
Try an actually lethal open table, for example a sandbox set around a central 'hub' location. As an example, check out the Old-School Essentials Recap Series by Mage's Musings. (That one was exciting, and quite lethal.)
I think I will. Thanks mutant!
Whether "certain D&D channels" are the cause or not, there is a culture that has built up around 5e that the customer is always right. The customer being the player. That setting limits to character option meant a DM was bad, boring, uncreative or worse. Recently on Xwitter, there was an outpouring of outrage that a DM limited the races available, including ones that were the darlings of the modern 5e player. The power seems to have really shifted to players away from DMs. There was discussion previously about DM shortages and I think this is much the cause. No stakes may suit a lot of people just fine, but without it it's just playing pretend with your OCs.
Yeah if you are trying to run a game that is human heavy you just need to establish this early on and make sure your players are good with it. Nice set of movies to base your games on.
Yes establish what the players want. I don't want to DM a 1st level character that is already amazing. That's not a character arc. It's a character line or character incline. If they are a prince and 1st level something has happened. They are still first level in power despite who their parents are.
I've fleshed out the Averoigne section of the Amber Castle module which is an alternative 13th century France with necromancers and alchemists but also clerics who don't get spells and who hate Magic.
It's also a human centric 13th century France during the reign of Chares V.
But it's an interval. The elves can cover their ears. Dwarves are thought to be midgets. and your magic users just have to be circumspect while they are here. Then they move back to the world.
My experience is it's nice to play tiny easily consumable bits that resolve in a session or two or three. Thus my love for Modules. Nice consumable chunks And then as you say move on.
Specific to this scenario, I think you could basically turn off PC death for it. They went to accomplish a small goal, so any death there feels wasted.
Out here spitting truth!... edition 5.5 dnd is just to 'gum drops and sparkles' ....I DM old school. hack and slash.
God I want my current shadowrun game to end so we can move on to the One Piece game I've been working on for a year and a half. (I am DM for my table, and they love our current necromunda shadowrun superhomebrew "game" but I've grown tired of it, they're already so overpowered they can two shot the strongest enemies in the game with minimal damage taken. It's not even that they were given unrealistic equipment or abilities, each of their sheets is pretty legit with mild reflavoring. The games just gone on so long that they're practically gods.)
I don't blame you, that sounds awful.
5e is brutal to dm. It encourages the dm to come up with everything and be an entertainer. I am happy to run games, but not intetested being an entertainer for entertainers sake. When you try to please everyone, you get a very meh, product.
Also you end up not pleasing yourself.. Smart players know when their Dungeon Master isn't feeling it anymore.. and that just adds to the sinking ship.
The problem is that. If you create a culture, it is very hard to change it. The established culture becomes the norm. 5th edition has a set culture. It is safe, heroic and great back stories develop. Other games offer other things.The problem is taking 5th ed players and immersing them in stark difficult OSR in my opinion.
Yeah its tough to teach old dogs new tricks.
I am dealing with the content bloat dilemma personally. Three games of teenagers with more time than brains.
Honestly makes me feel ill every time WotC releases a new book.
bloody hell...end of an era.
Here is how I solved the issues YOU are having.
1. My mega dungeon literally levels players up. When they reach a new level, they also reach a new level. Meta!
2. You are easily killed in my dungeon, but revival services exist and are cheap. Other adventurers often bring up dead delvers for a coin reward.
3. if you die, there is a 20-30% chance of being eaten. This means you can't be revived. You are done.
4. I have no over-hanging story. I simply dangle backstory stuff in front of my players and weave them into the lore of my world. If they want to solve THEIR issues, they have to understand how the world works, which means they ask a lot more questions than normal about the setting.
There is that no-save-death on LV1 of Dungeon of the Mad Mage for all of 5E's faults!
I find that west marches style campaigns that are designed for 4 hours then finish are the way to go.
honestly i think west marches is fantastic, especially if you're playing IRL. just have 8-10 people signed up and see how many show up each week.
Great video. The game just goes down hill if the DM isn't happy with what he's running
Thanks Jon!
You are not doing anything to convince me 5E DOESN'T SUCK and that the players who started out with it have any idea how D&D is played. No, I DO NOT count 5E as actually being D&D. Good video, enjoyed it
I dislike 5e a lot but at some point you gotta realize system does matter. 5e was made for high fantasy. If he's playing a low fantasy on 5e and it's not going well then he only has himself to blame. It's like trying to play medival fantasy on cyberpunk, it's not going to work lol
But to be fair 5e is infamously shit to DM so it probably didnt help either
5e is absolutely D&D. It's simply a different version than you prefer. Every edition has been fun for someone, and some have has fun playing all of them.
West Marches Campaign.
Kinda; yeah.
For a 1st level character, my background is about one paragraph explaining why i chose what i chose!
Very good!
Good video, I think that your Conan idea could really work for a group in which players might not stick around for too long. The party would be built around Conan or some other 'employer' and the PC's could join or leave as they see fit. The 'employer' stays the same carrying out adventures that take less than 4 weeks IRL and in different locations and the PC's are part of their party. The only issue is to make sure that Conan or the 'employer' doesn't take the spotlight away from the real party. You could have them be so distracted that they are bad at making decisions or have them deal with a big villain while the rest of the party is dealing with the real problem. An idea that I have used is a scholar who has really basic combat/magic skills who is a stereotypical absent minded professor while being very knowledgeable and dedicated to seeking new knowledge. However he needs a group of adventurers to keep him alive in the deep dark places of the world. Think of all the strange flora and fauna that exists in a fantasy setting, which means that there is a wealth of adventure awaiting a scholar brave enough to go out into the world. Short adventures in different locations with a rotating party while still holding together because of the 'employers' goals might be what your after.
Great idea.
Firbolgs were available in a 2nd Edition splatbook making a selection of monster races playable, including centaurs as I remember, which is extremely incompatible with any adventure involving a dungeon, caving or a lot of climbing. But all the new player races introduced from 4th Edition onwards I don't like because it changes the tone of the game too much and makes most setting incoherent in terms of the plausibility of distinct species and cultures in the world, if you're required to allow all manner of outlandishness in all towns and villages because players expect "representation." Available races should reflect the world, and the specific polity and culture in which the campaign begins and where the starting adventurers would be local to. Extraplanars, or planar halfbreeds should be as rare as hen's teeth, unless the campaign is premised on there having been a huge extraplanar invasion in recent history which has resulted in such a large population of extraplanars that they and their halfbloods have become normal. Any character that requires an explanation of how someone of their race, gender and atheist faith comes to be at the inn by the church in the ordinarily devout polytheist standard human village of Pikestream, is implausible, because if they had survived such a journey, they wouldn't be 1st level with only starting equipment. And that's with being a Basic & Expert fan who loves the Hollow World and all the additional playable races-as-classes it introduces, as well as Lupins, Rakastas, Tortles and such native to the fringes of the D&D Known World. My view is that any kind of species which is going to get the party in trouble and cause the locals to point and stare and maybe gather with pitchforks isn't available as playable while the party is travelling in that area, because they can't just show up and ask the party for a job there.
I always tried to write backstories bedded into the setting, after reading up, and mostly based on explaining my character creation choices in terms of skills, proficiencies and starting equipment, not trying impose any changes on the world by inventing stuff.
Dark Sun is one world none of my players wanted to start in.
Yeah some people don't like the vibe, it's fair enough.
I stopped allowing backstories about a year or so ago. They add little to the character except for "what my character really wants" and gives everyone their own story which only works if you build a game around those backstories and you intend to run 150+ session which doesn't happen.
Instead my players have to give their PC a personality and a short term ambition like learn some new spells, complete this bounty, buy a full suit of plate, and those ambitions get a bit more complex as the story emerges and they make friends and enemies.
That said, I am not a big fan of megadungeons, I am playing one right no (as a player) and its ok, its fun but a bit too board gamey. I prefer overworld travel and village/town/city based quests.
I've realised that too honestly, and I think it's okay for us as Dungeon Masters to say "No Backstories."
I personally like dungeons but I think Mega Dungeons are just a bit too big for me; and most of them are pretty samey and monotonous.
@@LokisLair its not just ok its expected, you are the game MASTER. If a player doesnt like it he can find another table. I havent had players leave because of that though, not yet. When i explain why they are usually like "yeah, makes sense".
I agree with the dungeons part, i feature them often in my games but they we are usually done with one or two sessions with them.
I don't mind dungeons with a bit of size; maybe 20-40 rooms.. but anything more than that is might be too much for the players I seem to play with; and maybe for me too.
dow dow dow boom boom boom dow
Direction in games is a good topic. I lost some players because they wanted to be furries.
Thanks Jay! Also wtf? Honestly I find the whole "Furry" obsession pretty cringy and I try to avoid playing with cringy players when I can.
Maybe have s session 0 where you and your players set expectations
Because it really sounds like you wanted to play two very different games
Interesting
GM long enough and these are the things you figure out.
I've been GMing for 10 years and I still think I have a lot to learn lmao.
I wouldn't say that 5e players are any particular type, as in "5e players want the DM to mold their game around the PCs". That's common among players of many different systems, but it's not always true. I'd say it's important to find a group of players who fit your style, and vice versa. I have a group of players who very much work with me to create a shared story, but I've found many players unlike that, and i would just say our play styles don't match.
Re: content bloat with all the options. There's no reason that a DM should need to remember all the rules. I lean on my players to tell me what their abilities do. That's a trust issue, so again you need players you can trust to not abuse that
over 50 bodies in my Barrowmaze graveyard, not including NPCs and game is still ongoing.
Adventurers should be prepared to die, who cares if they have big ambitions and are the last of a royal bloodline and a legend told he should one day become the king that saves the land, if he dies of fever forgotten in a dungeon after a rat bite him his adventure ends there, this is how life works.
And losing character in a campaign is not only to be expected but good, if everyone survives to the end they have to be either extremely skilled or extremely lucky, a campaign where everyone is supposed to survive to the end is way less meaningful, both the master and the player should expect the character not making it to the end, and if it ends in a tpk at the start of the campaign it's good too and you should be prepared to that
Sounds like you had 5E players in an old school game. I've had the same problem, modern players seem to be unable to try anything other than 5E play style so they force it into every other game.
Very true.
Good video, I’m sure other posters will talk about the background audio… lower it like 10 percent. I’d enjoy more of these
Noted!
Did you ever say why saying you can’t pair up with the same players in a row tired out bad?
tbh, from the sounds of it, it sounds like your Issue is 5e. You seem to have OSR sensibilities and desires, but 5e doesn't support that really, and neither does it's player base. As someone that's spent a LOT of time getting into game design beyond just homebrewing stuff, 5e is a hot mess. I think it's at it's best if you play PHB, mordenkanens, and maybe xanathar's as your only expansions. However it is made for a very particular thing. Which is to say, heroic high fantasy where the players are more or less gods amongst peasants. It's a supers game, not really a dnd game. Trying to run it as anything else just... doesn't work. There are too many core issues in the system in general, but straying from this remit causes it to collapse completely. There's not much use into looking into homebrews. I've tried. You would wind up running into so many issues that you'd be practically making a completely new system. Which at that point, you're better off just looking into other systems. To that end, I highly recommend Old School Essentials. It's all the good stuff of B/X but formatted and modernized in a far more readable format. It'll seem simplistic, especially coming from 5e, but I think if you have a tool around with that for a short adventure, maybe run your players through a funnel dungeon, you'll find you and your group getting into the swing of things in no time.
That aside, as for the issues regarding backstory; That's just a modern issue, really. 3.5e and derivatives of it (such as pathfinder, and modern dnd) flipped the script when it comes to character creation. Previously, the best approach was to roll stats, pick your class based on what you got, and run your lad/lass fresh from the farm until about 5th level when they had enough staying power for you to get properly attached. If they died, you'd roll up a new one and make up some explanations for why their stats and whatnot were they way they were. Their backstory and tale of heroics was what the campain was for. More modern systems have people laboring over their characters for hours. Carefully crafting every last detail from the finest theory-crafted builds, with a fine-tuned level of control that means everything can be exactly as they wish. If their character dies, that's hours if not days of effort down the drain in an instant. It's no wonder modern players are so adverse to character death, then. They practically have the same attachment to them as a mid to high level character at level 1.
As for issues telling a tale over an extended period with intermittent characters, I find it's better to attach such stories to the adventuring *party* rather than the individuals that comprise it. Have your players make a name for their little mercenary band. Individuals can gain fame, glory, and nobility, but the campain is telling the story of this particular group. This also makes character death less painful narratively. If someone leaves the group, their character can return to the base to help tutor new recruits. Same for if someone wants to swap characters. Someone joining the group is just as easily folded in, as a new recruit that's worth adding to the main team.
If you want an alternative for character death, I find maiming and scarring tends to work. I.E. if someone *would* die, they instead suffer a permanent injury like a lost eye, finger, etc. not enough to have a mechanical effect unless this happens often, but enough that the character is permanently affected. It creates a kind of badge of honor to have a character that is completely scar-less by the end of a campain. Though this can royally annoy those players that are very particular about the looks of their characters. Specifically those that like to play very pretty characters.
Old-school gaming requires character goals, not character backgrounds! You need self-motivated players, not people who just want to eat chips and watch you narrate a 'story'. Seems you've mostly figured that out.
Could not agree with you more on this entire video. Pretty much wont run 5ed or a game for 5ed players who wont leave the cancerous 5ed culture wotc has made. The games are not fun the players wont adapt and become problem players all the time. OSR is only what i will play for my own setting.
And They wonder why 5ed players cant find DMs for their game and 5ed over all is in massive decline in gaming cons
This video is honestly bringing up bad memories. Always remember these are 5E players they will demand to play a Dragonborn in Dragonlance just to be annoying.
Hahahaha omfg I’m so sorry.
Your table would be too restrictive for me. I also like Forgotten Realms.
Good. I think I'm at a point where I'm looking for players who match my views anyway lol.
Maybe I’m just being pedantic, but you aren’t the first person I’ve heard say it this way, and it annoys me. I’m referring to 10:40 when you basically say you either want a game where your choices matter, or a game where your character is probably going to survive. I find this a pretty daft frame of reference. If you look at, I don’t know, REALITY, you might notice that death is not typically a daily looming concern, but you also wouldn’t say that the choices you make in life are meaningless and don’t matter.
I find it especially silly because the people who frame it this way are almost always advocating for deadly dungeons and traps and generally capricious things that are out of character control. “You rolled low on the dice, so your character doesn’t see the trap. Oh look; you rolled low on the dice again. You’ve failed your save and your character is dead,” is the diametric opposite of gameplay where your choices matter.
Well I think you may have slightly misunderstood my meaning; ie. getting caught on the semantics of my speech.. but I understand that in both styles of game, choices have to be made and these choices matter. I would just argue that choices hold more weight in a game where death is more likely.. I've seen plenty of 5e groups who brute force encounters and adventures, by charging straight in without too much thought, because they assume there won't be any consequences. I don't really see many Shadowdark or other OSR groups doing that.. I wonder why? Also, your choice of words "Daft" and "Silly" paints a picture that you are trying to demean and devalue my point of view, I hope that's not the case. Thanks for the interaction.
From and old school perspective, I'd say that if that's how you are doing traps, you're really missing out.
If someone says I'm searching for traps, then yes it's a roll. But, they should say, "I carefully look at the cracks around... like we saw earlier." They asked because you telegraphed. I would give it to them without a roll.
I didn't mention traps much in the video but I don't do SAVE or DIE traps, at least not in my current games. I think telegraphing is important though, even for less deadly but still dangerous ones (especially if players have a good passive perception which is a part of 5e)
@@LokisLair that’s fine. The disrespect wasn’t aimed at you personally; just the logical extreme of the concept. Forgive my crabbiness. Like I said, this isn’t the first time I’ve encountered this turn of phrase.
We all come from a certain frame of reference. I don’t play with a broad statistical sampling of 5e groups; I play with family and friends, and in spite of my relatively forgiving style of game mastering, they are cautious to the point of near decision paralysis. This is why I get annoyed by the idea that if you aren’t killing off PCs left and right, all of the tension goes out of the game. So forgive the chip on my shoulder.
@@JeffreyJibson I don’t run traps like that. I completely agree with you. If you read my other replies, you’ll see the players I play with tend to be cautious, so I use traps sparingly and telegraph a lot, because otherwise every time they move 5 feet they would be stopping to check for traps, and the whole game would bog down, lol.
Get gud!
LMAO.