End it with: "Next week, we are playing Shadowdark."

What the hell is this strap made out of? Enchanted leather? Making a roll at disadvantage makes sense as it is a “small” strap. If it is a small strap, how does a 19 not hit? It isn’t a steel strap.

Little disappointed this video didnt end on a cliffhanger

This kind of feels like an "everyone sucks here" situation and I could see why the player would be upset. They had a cool idea in their head that may not have worked with the rules/setting, but the DM did not convey it being that difficult to do either. Every time the player tried to succeed in the action in one way, the DM put up barrier after barrier of additional rules. An unsuspecting player is going to feel like that's the DM trying to stop them from doing the thing. The player's statement at the end is valid. "If I knew it was going to be this hard, I wouldn't have done it." and the DM should have communicated that beforehand. Saying "Okay, the saddle is held on by four straps and will be difficult to hit. I'll be imposing disadvantage on the roll since it's essentially a small target on a fast character. Do you want to try?" that would at least allow the player to be on the same page as their character and to decide whether or not it's worth trying. Communication is key for a good game, both from the player and the DM.

Had a DM like this once. I wanted to use my Pipes of Haunting to try to frighten as many enemies as possible. She told me that since someone had cast Sleet Storm previously, it was too loud for anyone to hear the pipes (which is not in the description of the spell). I asked if I could do something else then since I thought my PC would have known if there was too much noise to use the pipes. She not only said no, but accused me of trying to cheat in front of the whole table. Needless to say, I never returned to her games.

The GM's the problem here. Should warn about his intended obstacles before the player attempts the feat. Just coming up with reasons as to why the player failed on the spot makes for punishing and more importantly, impossible to account-for difficulty. Make something hard, sure, but also make sure your players are aware of how hard the thing is.

Keep it super simple

im currently workshopping my first campaign while one of the upcoming party members dm’s for our other campaign. ive planned out at least 10 NPC’s and locations, and they havent even thought about making characters yet am i cooked?

Uh…people have been doing that for all of history 😅 But point taken regardless

Just wow! Now Matt and his crew are pretty talented and fun to watch, but that doesn't mean you should try to BE them. The big crime here is taking away player agency. Even if you as a DM are going to set me up with a premise that I've already seen on video (which is pretty lame! change shit up! be original and do something different!) don't expect me to do what Matt & crew have done. Instead, expect me to think out of the box and find a DIFFERENT solution. This kind of nonsense is what I hated about MOORPGs like WOW, on the very short occasions I played them: Same quest every time. (You can even look them up online to find the "right" way to beat them!) Once you've done it once, it's done. The whole beauty of TTRPGs is the absolute freedom you have as a DM or PC to try new tactics and react in different ways.

While none of these are surprising to me, it's certainly very difficult to employ it, and it's definitely something I'm actively trying to work on. It doesn't help that I'd have to look for the "end" point cliffhanger at about a half-hour into the session, because our games generally only have 1.5 to 2 hours of active play. The first half hour before we start is catching up and waiting for everyone to arrive, and then another half hour is lost due to cross-chatter and neurodivergent idiosyncrasies that we have to manage in our 3 hours of available time for a session. I've had some great sessions that employed these methods, but most of the time, we have to cut a session simply because we've run out of time and nothing particularly interesting managed to happen during the brief time we had that night.

Honestly, I would try to communicate the difficulty prior to him attempting because sometimes the player has a completely different image in mind of what the saddle looks like. Some players just don't have knowledge about certain things.

I try to involve a twist in my more memorable fights, and tend to end a session with the reveal, allowing them to really stew in it for the next week's session. For example, my party most recently was trying to extract a charmed man and stolen cat from the blacksmith's daughter. The Blacksmith saw the man as a bum whom his daughter, a 'miracle child' who overcame a mysterious and deadly illness unexpectedly, was madly in love with. The party had made a deal with the blacksmith to take the man, a fugitive that one party member has been tracking since his backstory. The Blacksmith agreed, but couldn't be party to hurting his daughter, and made it clear that she was not to be harmed. The party had tried sending the faces to distract her at the front door like fantasy Mormons while the rest of the party was going to sneak through a side window to take the man and the stolen cat. I had played up how the girl was infatuated with the clearly charmed man, and how she seemed to believe that her perfect life was just getting started. The first problem they noticed was that she was immune to the psionic charm effect, causing the faces to rely more on being distracting than her compelled attention. The second problem was the rest of the party found the man chained to the wall, clearly drained and emaciated, Still very much under the charm effect. But what really tipped her hand was when one party member made too much noise in freeing the man, causing the 5'2" young woman to rush back and knock the door off its hinges with one hand. A party member tried casting hold person on her, only for the spell to fizzle. This party just discovered that the "miracle child" didn't simply overcome her illness, and now are trying to use clues (like that she never leaves her house, some dialogue she had said after the one party member shouted that she wasn't human, etc) to puzzle out what happened to this sickly little girl to turn her into the monster they've enraged. And that's where I left them, with the party just starting to react to how far they've misread the situation. I'm still getting players trying to get hints as to what it is, while I'm hoping the players choose to run away and let this become a new re-occurring nemesis (they killed the first one I tee-ed up).

I love the DM's concept here. Multiple straps. DM probably should have used Barbarians passive perception to see how many straps, and see if barbarian still wanted to. Then throw in some slight movement happening to keep the rider steady.

Remember guys, it's just a sketch, so it's kept brief. Ideally, when a player wants to do something like this and you as DM think it would not be as easy as they think, it's important to let the player know so they can make an informed choice. I know that message is lost by how this fictional DM handled the situation but the subject is the player who takes action, fails, then wants to take their action back and do something else. Like EVERY TIME their turn doesn't work out the way they expected. It's a topic that came up during a stream not to long ago.

Dungeon room/area descriptions should mention passive skill. If nobody has a passive skill 5 above, that part of description is skipped, or made more vague.

My players adopted a minor (as in teenage) criminal that was doing low stakes Robery crimes from a board job. She’s now one of the main NPCs

Yeah, nah that's a DM failing to just say look man I just want to run a straight forward combat.

I have like 15 questions about this. Is the combat aerial? Does the rider have an ability to attack foes targeting his mount like sentinel or is that not how it works? Is the player using a reach weapon? Couldn't the player use a grapple to unseat the rider by yanking them down instead? Could the DM ask the player to save feed back for later so as to keep the game going? rule 0 is a thing at most tables. How big is the player compared to thw hippogriff? Couldn't you attempt to graaple the hippogriff to force it to dump the rider? Couldn't the DM give their entire explination before the first roll? Piece mealing info causes whining too. Why is the DM just allowing the whine? If you hit this point in the gane surely the player knows what kind of DM they are playing with.

I kinda disagree, though it depends on how that guy or gal acted prior to that event. Pretty sure most people don't do that level of research on equipment in medieval times. If that player wasn't already a problem previously I'd just retcon the event if it's reasonable. With so little context here, I'd say it's both the player's and DM's fault for not properly communicating how things are going to work

Gonna have to disagree with the ruling. But otherwise yes that attitude is an issue

One time a player said “your no fun” because there is consequences to the player’s actions.

I recently read "Red Nails" by Howard where Conan comes to a city with around 100 people in it, broken into two factions and all of them are crazy. Would be nice to see info on how to run an adventure in a lost or abandoned city

Bruh. If your going to ask someone to roll to do something out of the box. Either tell them its impossible or make it work on a high roll. Having people roll for shit that is impossible is like punishing them for trying to be creative

"alright, that was your action. now it's the player's turn" "Wait what" "The player is next on the turn order" "Well f-" *explodes in fireball*

I think whether or not this works depends on the type of campaign you’re running and the players you have more than the actual rules. In this exact instance there’s no reason for disadvantage. The high AC makes perfect sense though. Having a backup strap on a saddle for a flying mount also makes a lot of sense but 3 backups? Idk. In general though, I would give contextual warnings to my players about how hard an idea is to pull off to avoid this sort of disconnect.

I think the GM should have already told the player these things. In this situation the GM does actually suck.

Nah most of the is just preference. Hate to break it you you old man.

Yup, absolutely had this player. Not only was he like this, but he'd cross his arms and pout, mumbling that he doesn't get to do anything fun so why even bother.

Maybe players should ask how difficult something seems to be before doing it. I've had a player who would make these wild plans in his head, only for them to not work because the game doesn't work like that. He at least has the courtesy to check with me to see if it's possible, most of the time.

Anybody ever watch the movie bloodsport

Thank you UAW 😘🍭

For NPCs, I have 3 loose levels of complexity within NPCS: 1.) Pivotal - This NPC is going to show up multiple times and have several interactions with the party. They get a full description, inventory, a about 5 personality features - Attitude (haughty and noble, disciplined and soldier-like, mousy and evasive, etc), Short term goal (finding their next meal, getting a new weapon, whatever this character is doing in the scene they're in), Long term goal (becoming a lord some day, starting a family in another city, finally standing up to their master and choking them to death in their sleep, etc), a FLAW, (thinking they're better than everyone else, being horrible with money, having an addiction that has consumed their life, etc.), and lastly, a motivation (I want to be a lord because I hate being told what to do, I want to leave because my old family died here, I want to get off the streets because I used to have it all before my house burned down, etc). 2.) Standard - This NPC is probably going to show up more than once. Usually one of two NPCs in a player's backstory - usually the one they're less connected to. They get an attitude, a flaw, and a short term goal. 3.) Throwaways - This NPC was probably made up on the spot. If they aren't , they most assuredly show up exactly once. They get an attitude and a short term goal. Of course, there's tons of exceptions, I've been running games for nearly a decade now, but that's the usual sauce.

Any advice when you have players argue over loot?

I run fairly tactical games, so my players are usually fine with this sort of thing. We chat about action economy. They see every turn the bad guys aren't hitting them as a turn in their favor.

I actually use character sheets for IMPORTANT NPCs. Like the main villain, quest givers, generals, captains of the guard, bandit leaders, etc. Why I do this is to give a "equal footing" to the players, where they (the players) are NOT the most powerful people around and give a solid challenge when I need the fight to be challenging. Having one of my players, who was a ranger, suddenly have a barbarian get in their face and start smashing them made everyone go "OH CRAP" which was the goal. They had to fight smart, as the barbarian was going to win a physical brawl. Another tried to pick a fight with the captain of the guard, who was actually meant to be a friendly, primary quest giver to the party. He was a multiclass forge cleric and fae wanderer ranger. Heavy armor, magical weapon, shield, and searing smite made it clear that this captain EARNED his position. The player, whom the others left to his own devices because they DIDN'T want to fight the NPC, got bodied, nearly died, and arrested. The other players were glad they didn't join the fight, as they weren't sure what else the captain could do. The guard captain actually became fairly liked, and definitely respected.

I have come alter years of experience. That the best NPC's are the ones your players build alongside them. For example, one of my BBG was actually a simple encounter of a devil in disguise. It was facking being a fragile women, but when alone with one player she revealed herself. It was supposed to be a combat, but the bard instead try to get an contract with her. An so the devil now a patron of one of the players interacted regularly with them. First an ally, then a menace. As of right now the bard objective is to free himself from the contract while behind the scenes the devil took over the player identity and life with his family and friend.

Most ideas are very good. Nice video! But i would suggest to never end the session in the middle of an exciting combat. The players might be totally in the zone and the same action filled feeling might be gone at the beginning of the next session while the players take their time to let lose of the real world and find their way back into the situation they last left of. Im in general not a big fan of cliff hangers. Its like jump scares in horror movies. Most of the time its just a cheep trick which takes away the tension of the moment and then it becomes harder to build up this tension again.

Kinda new to dnd, but I had a fun character idea. I was gonna play as a criminal of some sort who is out on parole, but the guard who watches him is also in the group. So my character would be trying to not do anything illegal in front of the guard, and he would try to betray the party and escape later in the story. Any advice on how I could set that up

One of my favorite backstories i wrote of "Someone whos experienced but super low level" was a thief who got into crime super early in life and got lucky to get out early as well with enough money to live but now years later hes been pulled back in but hes forgotten all his skill and what he hasnt forgotten he just isn't able to do anymore or as good as he used to with age. It was really fun playing him and experiencing him getting that skill and confidence back

Flying races have ONLY RUDIMENTARY wings at low level in my campaigns. They have to mature (by fifth level).

"Common Skill Check Mistakes DMs Make" *looks inside* "My homebrewed rules for how I wish skill checks worked"

Yes, I imagine the Three Action Economy really would speed things up. No checking one's character sheet or looking things up in the book or online, and as you say, it makes things more dynamic. Also, thanks for laying the ground work on how that would actually play out. The idea about "bonus action spell=1 action and standard spell equals 2" and other stuff.

Off-topic, but what is the creature at 11:46-11:49, or, if not an actual creature, where is the artwork from or who made it?

The biggest thing I’ve found with cliffhanger endings is curating them for the party. In one of my games we love when ending mid-combat means the DM changes the rules of engagement (a portal opens and an old foe appears. The boss powers up and reveals a new form. The minion pulls the lever and the cave starts to crumble in potentially killing us all) It makes starting combat next session feel fresh. On the other hand my other group would rather stay an hour late than end without resolving combat. That or we end 45 mins early to let combat start next session.

I always end at the party planning what they will do next session, to save on wasted prep.

Guys… what if Elon ends up becoming an evil dictator by accident? Like he didn’t like twitter so he bought it. He might buy Disney because he knows they need better leadership when it comes to the stories they’re telling. So what if one day he comes to the conclusion that he doesn’t like the government and he can do it better, and he’d be right. But then there’s all the people who disagree with him and the people who see him as a bad guy and he’d have to explain to the common denominator what he’s trying to accomplish. They don’t understand and decide he’s lying like every politician before him. And Elon ends up having to create a totalitarian regime just to get things set up in a way he knows would work for everyone, but he ends up destroying the world in the process

Ironically, my gnome alchemist was the opposite. I put basically no effort into him beyond naming him "Schorsch", and he became the party's favourite NPC and the one person they trust in the entire city. (Leaving all the more fleshed out NPCs by the wayside, obviously.) The only predictable behaviour of D&D players is unpredictability.

I feel like ending this game in the middle of combat is a bad idea, if you're not catering to all the players, someone might not come back, and the combat stalls

Celtic "KEL-tik"