Solving Player Behaviors: Hobbitism

[@BobWorldBuilder]

💥 dScryb (affiliate): dscryb.com/?aff=267 ✅ LIKE & SHARE: kzbin.infovideos ✅ PATREON: www.patreon.com/bobworldbuilder

[@togapika]

See you said hobbitism and I immediately thought you meant characters who don't want to adventure

[@theblueflame2221]

@@togapika Underrated comment Edit: Why would anyone call something unpleasant Hobbitism? You'd figure Hobbitism is associated with good, perhaps too comfy living.

[@kev_whatev]

If your players won’t open a door, have something scary open it for them

[@plucas1]

*Door swings open* "Hallo hallo, tax collector a-callin'!" "AAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!"

[@croissant2434]

I feel like it would just solidify any paranoia of doors. since you give them a reason to fear them.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

I love this! haha

[@christopherg2347]

@@croissant2434 There is something to be said about having the Initiative by being the first to open it. But yes, this is a valid issue with Camping Styles - don't end up justifying their paranoia.

[@flamezombie1]

Or have another adventurer walk out with a ton of money and not a scratch on them...

[@FireallyXTheories]

Way I heard it: Shire Frodo is your backstory, Rivendell Frodo "I will take it" is your current character, an adventurer

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Exactly!

[@Abelhawk]

I love that. Sometimes people get those mixed up and have another problem of somehow being a well-known legendary conqueror but they're 1st level.

[@politenonparticipant4859]

@@Abelhawk a well known conqueror should never be level 1.

[@Abelhawk]

Exactly.

[@ThorsShadow]

@@politenonparticipant4859 Congratulations, you understood the point of that guy's comment.

[@MikaelJSandersson]

I tell my players when I start a campaign "Make sure your character is an adventurer that will be able to work with others". Worked well enough this far.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

It's great when everybody just listens lol

[@BleydTorvall]

A good idea in a session 0 is for the DM to ask the players what motivates their character to team up with others to go on adventures. If they can't provide a good reason, then that character needs to be reworked a bit until they can.

[@BramLastname]

Yeah, in my current campaign I told them You each share a part of your backstory with a player of your choice, So now whenever 2 characters decide to go somewhere the other 3 either all join them or give them some alone time. The key factor being that they always try to do things together, Instead of them all going off on their own whenever they've got downtime.

[@hexidecimark]

Never ever build characters in a vacuum. Always build them as a group.

[@MikaelJSandersson]

@@hexidecimark I've never built them as a group, more than just making sure there are no doubles for classes. Getting to know the other PCs is like a huge deal for me.

[@heavenlyguardianHG]

One of my past games slowed down to a crawl once because we ended up settling down in the DM’s sci-fi fantasy capital part of the world because most of the people who were driving the party sorta just died. We stayed there until the end of the campaign where we ended up with a confrontation with an evil organization which essentially told us to “Split and retire or die” and because none of the characters had any attachment to the party we chose the former. It was still a pretty fun campaign but it’s a shame it had to end in such a way.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

That definitely sounds like a non-typical game, but if it was fun along the way, it was still a good campaign!

[@Wetcorps]

This is something that I often thought about when playing as characters that didn't know each other beforehand. I felt we mostly stuck together against imposible odds for the sake of playing the game when realistically everyone would have said "I out of here" and gone home. When I mastered my own game I avoided this problem by making my PCs prisoners from the start, they had to cooperate together and with NPCs to escape (which they did brillantly).

[@janus2773]

@@Wetcorps you can also in session zero make it a requirement for each character to have a history with at least one other character, creating group cohesion and even incentivising collaborative backstories

[@Wetcorps]

@@janus2773 Yes that seems like a requirement for more traditional scenarios.

[@asdaneedsfunds]

Our party got bit hard by the transition between the two wotc Waterdeep campaigns, and only my PC survived an encounter down there. There was no way he'd carry on with a bunch of strangers - he just retired and lived a happier life. We all rolled new characters and moved on.

[@BhbtheRock]

I've never been a DM, but as a player, whenever I feel like my character wouldn't do something, I turn to the other players and say "convince my character" It almost always leads to good conversations in character, and I can just roleplay changing my mind without breaking my own immersion

[@stevdor6146]

YES this, i feel like some people Roleplay a character that secretly want to join others in the adventure, but want others to beg them to join so that they feel needed/wanted by the group and so they can feel enabled to say things like "this was your bad idea, i knew i should have stayed home"

[@ejthenobody]

Hoooooo, lemme just bust out my notepad here.

[@lightworker2956]

That's great, assuming that your character isn't an antisocial selfish loner. Then "convince my character" can get pretty old pretty quickly. But in most cases, great point.

[@BhbtheRock]

@@lightworker2956 nah, I'm usually the lawful stick in the mud who needs convinced by the murder hobos 🤣

[@pacceli2009]

In a better system, they could roll a persuation check, opposed by one of your character's Traits, and than, convince him.

[@dallisjohnson662]

I'm an advocate of session zero character building. We set the expectations for characters and the degree of realism to expect. This is the kind of adventure we are having, let's build characters that work for this adventure. Works exceedingly well. I also encourage players to watch the details of the story closely. Helps me keep the facts of the story straight. Almost never have these problems with players.

[@FentonHardyFan]

Huh. In my group we all worked with the DM to create characters who have a reason to be making choices to be involved in the adventure, but the players don't know about the other players characters at the start of the game. So over the seven months of weekly sessions our characters have been getting to know each other, learn each other's secrets, build trust and friendships, etc. It's been a blast, even if our characters don't all have the same moral code, argue a lot, and keep new secrets from one another. :P

[@okayhonks]

Slight adjustment: "No one's fun is wrong (unless its purpose is to take fun from others)." People have fun stealing the spotlight. People have fun derailing game sessions. People have fun *actively* trying to frustrate the DM. People have fun being contrary. It's why they do these things. But in a social setting, fact is, these types of fun are Incorrect. Because they aren't personal fun. They are engines that require The Fun of Others as fuel. I can't have fun unless someone else isn't. I can't *gain* fun unless someone else *loses* some. Like "fun" in some finite resource for which we're all competing. Yeah, that kind of fun is wrong.

[@Journey-of-1000-Miles]

Precisely!

[@hexidecimark]

I believe you're just having issues with lack of immersion. Consider the proportion of people who want to kill preston garvey in fallout 4 vs the proportion of people who side with goodsprings in new vegas.

[@okayhonks]

​@@hexidecimark In a single player game, hey, go for it. Cleanse the planet of NPCs. For me, it's not about respect for the fictional characters or game world. The issues I'm talking about center on respect for *other players*.

[@kevinquintana2647]

@@hexidecimark How does immersion fit into it and why exactly are you asking them to consider the proportion of people who want to kill Preston vs side with Goodsprings?

[@hexidecimark]

@@kevinquintana2647 In FNV, the player has no real reason to attack Goodsprings. Very few people do, because why would you just hurt people who very recently helped you? In F4, you're kicked out of any sense of immersion because Garvey is constantly forcing himself on you and being a general burden. The players don't consider Preston a friend or an ally, because they don't like being told that they like someone. In other words, if a player is immersed and invested, they will act accordingly, and will likely not lash out at other players or NPCs; an easy shortcut to break that immersion is forcing something onto a character.

[@AfunnynameWEE]

It CAN be fun to create a Hobbit-Type character who gets dragged along the adventure, don't really want to be there, and constantly asks questions about how silly everything is. But not only everyone at the table has to be on board with having that particular character, you as a player have to work together with the dm and the party to move that character forward. Sounds risky and tiring, but in the proper hands it could be phenomenal.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Yeah I guess it's actually similar to playing an evil character is a good/neutral campaign. The rest of the group really has to trust that the player has everyone's best interest in mind

[@aogasd]

You can pull this off more easily by creating a separation between your and your character's opinions. Call them out when they're being a butt and make fun of their opinions, so that others don't feel burdened by the character, or worse, start thinking that you share the opinions of your character. Source: (in a written rp) I roleplayed an antisocial young boy who was collecting mental illnesses and trauma like trading cards. He was a horrible lil shit a lot of the time, but one of the more beloved characters I've ever had. He had people begging to be his found family. I'm pretty sure that's at least in half because I was making fun of him and bullying the character every chance I got, out of character. While also using that sneakily as a way to info dump lore bits that made the other writers sympathise with the character. Because even if he had an abrasive personality, he was also just miserable and quite pathetic, so they wanted to help. And he'd begrudgingly accept help, and be a tsundere about it... Man, he had a ton of character growth over the year I wrote him. He almost reached the point where he would've been able to function as a normal person! He had a girlfriend and everything. Dang I miss writing my stinky little gremlin.

[@nomukun1138]

5:46 I deliberately made a character who would push the story forward, it seemed my playgroup needed it. Even when I as a player was nervous, I would say, "Um, Augustus is going to jump through the portal to another world unless someone stops him..." give the players a few seconds to think about it, try to get a reaction to see if it would make someone upset for any reason, and do it.

[@seeranos]

There's a 4th reason players do the 'nitpicking' thing: Strategy. Resolving ambiguousness about a universe's physics, biology, and society can open up entertainingly surprising yet still consistent solutions to encounters. The problem is a DM will have to have thought about these kinds of fundamentals or be quick on the draw to be able to provide satisfactory emergent solutions. That's a huge amount of work for a DM to potentially go unused in a campaign (though an opponent could potentially use these emergent effects against the players as a way to signal that they can think outside the box).

[@adamwelch4336]

Even Bilbo went out into the world he grumped the whole time but had a adventure! sometimes people need a "nudge out the door!" As Gandalf explained to Frodo

[@adamwoolston253]

Something that’s worked well for me is a session zero discussion of “tell me why your character decided to be an adventurer.” I’ve found that this question often makes players realize they’ve created a Hobbit when they don’t have a good answer, and it’s an opportunity to help them tweak their character into someone more willing to go on an adventure. And when they DO have a good answer, I can better craft my adventure hooks to appeal to the individual characters. If the Rogue is in it for the money, I promise a substantial gold reward for this quest I really want them to do. Character is lawful good and powerful and believes that with great power comes great responsibility? Include a danger to innocents if they ignore the hook I really want them to bite. One player is on a revenge quest to get the guy who killed his dog? Name drop them as being associated with this quest. Get by the “my character wouldn’t go” excuse by understanding what makes your PCs click and specifically designing quests that they WOULD go on. On the flip side, I’m currently going through a campaign as a player, and my character’s entire reason for adventuring was resolved. I’d been clear with my DM that my character didn’t really care about the larger war, but there was one particular thing he was looking for, and… he found it. So, rather than bog down the campaign by becoming a Hobbit, I suggested that I could roll up a new character who’s motives were more central to the campaign and let this one just retire. I think that was better for everyone in the end

[@giantdwarf9491]

The most recent character I've started working on is fully homebrewed. He's a mammothodon race, War Hulk class, and the savage land background. He's mainly a hand to hand fighter with grappling and throwing moves, and after reaching war hulk lvl 7 will become a huge size PC, but I have an idea that revolves around a shoddily made magical item that allows him to shrink down for convenience but also has no control of how small he can become. I'm planning on just rolling a D6 and adding 2 for however many ft tall he'll become. I'm honestly excited as hell to eventually get to play him

[@PyroManic825]

One of my favorite moments from my last campaign: We were tasked with climbing a mountain to slay a white dragon. We knew that there was a high priority that the BBEG, who had an Orb of Dragonkind, was on that mountain. Knowing the danger, my character did NOT want to climb the mountain, and actively tried to convince the party so. The one thing my character valued more than money was his life. So how did I work around this? My character knew if they did not get the Orb for their master, they would suffer a fate worse than death. So, begrudgingly, up the mountain they went. An in-character solution for an in-character problem!

[@petergammell5599]

Given the name and how you describe it, I'm imagining Mary and Pipen's scene with Aragorn when they are complaining about not stopping for breakfast and "second breakfast". When we as players choose to speak up about random things we don't like about the fantasy world, we are bringing other's down, rather than focusing on the good. Let's let our characters have time in the spotlight, rather than being the group out of immersion to put ourselves (the players) in the spotlight.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Excellent summary! :)

[@thodan467]

Great scene of character exposition

[@9553shadow]

If the flaw makes it impossible for me to have fun or feel immersed I will point it out.

[@flibbernodgets7018]

Poking holes in the logic of the world can lead to fun moments, but Idk any hard and fast rules about it. There was one instance where a bad guy we were facing was so serious about killing our group that he either got these specific creatures to possess or replace his hands, I can't remember exactly how he did it, but the jist was that his hands were sentient creatures with separate turns so he could get more attacks per round. I thought about it for a moment and asked, "what happens when he goes to the bathroom? Do they, like, draw straws to see who has to wipe?" It took a long while for us all to stop laughing. The GM was building this guy up to be a cool and dangerous threat (and he was, nearly killed us), but the poop question brought him down a bit in our regard. And in his treasure, we found one slightly smelly wand of prestidigitation with only a few charges left. This was labeled "poop wand" on the character sheet of whoever looted it.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Lol yeahh that is hilarious, but I'd say it *may* have been better to save the comment until after the battle. Like I said in the video, it all depends on what tone of game the group is aiming for. Excellent work on the DM's part for including the joke in the loot xD

[@Stothehighest]

On the other hand, would that not have been an excellent use of Vicious Mockery?

[@flibbernodgets7018]

@@Stothehighest I mean, I was playing a bard, just not in 5e. Pathfinder has something similar called "Blistering Invective", where you literally roast someone so bad that they catch fire, but that wasn't on my list as I was more a support than anything else.

[@GasparLewis]

Great general advice, as always, but one caveat: like you hint at, "hobbitism" can be appropriate depending on the setting, and how much the DM is encouraged to try and get you. As long as you respect the vibe and your fellow players, what's deflating in D&D might be dynamic in another setting. Signed, a Delta Green player.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Good point!

[@Arkylie]

Doesn't it come down to the distinctions among "Jumped at the Call," "Refusing the Call," "The Call Knows Where You Live" and variations of how The Call works? At least, when it comes to the start of the game, you can have characters who are eager to go, characters who accept it as a Thing They Must Do, and then maybe some characters who are hesitant but who get pushed into the adventure against their preferences -- and so long as the *player* doesn't feel like they're getting pushed into something against their wishes, that all makes sense for characterization. For areas where the players are engaging in too much caution, as a group, I'd say it's time to add a deadline of some sort -- a force that spurs them on to accept the risk ahead as preferable to the risk of taking too long. Which can also be a clue that the part ahead isn't likely to kill them. The player is free to be griping in character while still doing the things the character "doesn't want to do." There's a section in Avernum 2 where you're undergoing a "Test of Speed" and you take like two steps forward from where you entered (a one-way trip) and suddenly the wall springs open behind you to reveal a line of Quickfire. You better believe we run through that next section as fast as possible, not caring what beasts we might encounter! (It's a handful of goblins.) In the original game, IIRC, there's a village that will get destroyed if you dally too much. I could see having a "must do this by sunset/sunrise" effect, a "must do this before we run out of X" effect, a "must do this before Effect Y gets too severe" effect, that sort of thing. "Must find the evidence before the magistrate leaves town in the morning" or "Must find the magical spring down here and bring some back before young Jenny dies" can be powerful motivating forces that convey a sense of momentum rather than too much caution.

[@natezabinski5615]

Great troubleshooting video, but I'd personally confront a problem player directly than sending them a 9-ish long video that gives them a multiple choice on what beef I could have with them. Again, I like the word you made up and I hope it helps gives the TTRPG community a name to some of their issues.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Hahah yeah clearing the air with a conversation should always be the first solution

[@MoarCheeseBirb]

Refusing to adventure is a standard step in the Joseph Campbell Hero's Journey. So you've got 2 separate pressures on player behaviors, the direct threat of adventuring being risky and bad things likely happening to their character, but also there's a cultural pressure. We were raised on stories where the hero is called to adventure, and they immediately refuse to go, and then something happens that compels the hero to move forward. So many players might subconsciously believe they're playing their part correctly by refusing to bite the plot hook, because that's how these stories are supposed to go!

[@giladpellaeon1691]

In the first campaign I ran we had a wet erase grid table mat. I would often draw out obstacles on the mat by tracing the square grids until one session the players jokingly asked if someone in the wilderness was trimming the trees into square shapes. Mildly frustrated, I responded, "Yes, yes there is." This was how my homebrew demigod Hedge came into being, god of geometry and gardening. Later in the campaign a player gained a cohort (this was in D&D 3.5) who was a cleric to Hedge and would regain his spells everyday by attending to a portable bonsai bush.

[@RokuroCarisu]

This is fucking brilliant! 🤣

[@lordixlandis5085]

The worst players I have are the ones trying too hard to win D&D. They either role up character with the intent of breaking the game so they can control everything, or they bully players and the DM to get their way.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Yikes those are definitely more extreme problems. They did come up in the post responses too, but I think there are already good videos addressing this. I know Ginny Di had one a few weeks (months?) ago about how to talk to players that really broke it down in a straightforward way

[@Alche_mist]

In the larp community, "You have won the larp." is way to tell someone to make their reality check. Winning DnD is about the same.

[@hacksbeenjamin]

Had a player that seemingly wanted to skip every "cutscene" or rp part to get to combat but then when combat came around they'd just "I attack with X" "I rolled a 19." "6 points of damage". Like what the hell are you even doing here?

[@priestesslucy]

How are we defining 'breaking the game'? I've encountered a lot of GMs who get really irritated when their monsters aren't making someone sweat lol

[@archam777]

Yeah those people are annoying. Currently playing with someone who transitioned a third edition character ( not my campaign ), literally just rolled for a game that flopped, over to my game for 5th edition, and was upset that I didn't let them keep their strength of 30.........AT LEVEL 1!!! He manages to complain about "getting nerfed" almost every session on a weekly basis. Lol, one of his biggest complaints before this was "no one will let me play My half fiend Minotaur!!!" Lol, I let him play it, and there's constant complaining. I think "the superhero", are the most annoying players to deal with. Min-maxer's are almost as bad. At least they'll role play though. I don't understand a "Diablo" mentality in dungeons & dragons. It's just not that kind of game.

[@Lightning-2153]

It reminds me of the most basic rule of improv: don't say no, because as soon as you say no, it ends the improv.

[@hacksbeenjamin]

"Yes, and"

[@jasonutty52]

Unless your DM Style doesn't rely on a lot of improv, in which case saying no is perfectly acceptable. Especially if you're trying to maintain some sort of internal logic or consistency.

[@nicka3697]

A little kobold child, pushes past you and flings the door open calling out "mommy we've got cowards". DM choice whether mommy is a goblin cupcake baker in a pinny who tuts at them or an ancient red dragon.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Hahah next time my players get stuck at a door, I'm using that

[@nicka3697]

@@BobWorldBuilder make your game more fun for yourself toss a coin for the outcome!

[@gastonbell108]

"mommy we've got cowards" "ancient red dragon" Me: (checks watch) And on that note, let's call it an early night, guys. Also I'm probably not coming back, just FYI.

[@slaplapdog]

I've probably done all of these bad behaviors. These days I play fantasy versions of my middle aged dad self. I'm gaming to spend time with my kids and I try to help them have fun and stay alive. It's the best gaming of my life 😌.

[@perhaps1094]

Thats the dream :)

[@1Lanavis1]

Hobbitism definitely is easy to fall into at times and is good to keep that in mind to resist that

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Yep, like I said in the video, I've done my fair share of breaking the group's immersion. Noticing it is the first step to solving it!

[@aldrinvendt8524]

My personal biggest problem I struggle with: backseat gaming. I'm kind of the power gamer of our group, I find it super fun to create powerful class combos, min/max stats, and play optimally during combat. So when the rogue decides to throw a fire bolt rather than take the guard out with his dagger which would be silent and do more damage, I get a little annoyed. Or when someone damages the enormous scary target I just successfully subdued with hypnotic pattern so we could deal with the swarm of minions first. I know I need to just let other players play the way they want, and take the actions they feel like taking, but when they directly counteract my own actions...yeah, it's a problem I gotta keep more in check. also, my DM took pity on me and had the giant monster attack the person who broke the hypnotic pattern the rest of the combat.

[@Anemonemonemona]

"What do you mean i can't make a nuclear bomb? Here, take a look at my schematics, it's perfectly possible for my Artificer to make it!" "Ok, it'll be of one use only" "But in this schematic i use a thing that is abundant in this world, so i can do many" Classic.

[@charlesvanzee4879]

Yeah, but the opposite of that is just as annoying. My last DM wouldn't let me craft anything with my artificer that wasn't specifically listed in the rules because he felt tinkering was OP.

[@Anemonemonemona]

@@charlesvanzee4879 on my table i just think in a scale of 1-10 if it is possible. 1-4 is easy, any artificer can make. 5-7 is kinda hard... Only good artificers can make it. 8-9 Absolute mad scientist, things that sounds impossible, but are fun to work with... They're very difficult. 10 no (any lore/campaign breaking invention).

[@hexidecimark]

We just make stuff like that a campaign goal

[@kaneconqueror6560]

@@charlesvanzee4879 I ran into that. An artificer that can't craft is so disapointing. And so many craftsmen toolsets are listed, yet almost none of them have practical use for players because of how the crafting system works raw.

[@rocketraccoon1976]

"Ok, sure you can build as many as you want." "Fantastic!!" "While building your first one, an accidental chain reaction occurs, leading to a premature atomic explosion. Your PC is instantly vaporized. Roll up a new one."

[@1989nonenowhere]

I have a legit fear of opening doors in DnD because our DM kept using exploding doorknobs as traps

[@JMcMillen]

Which makes absolutely no sense as the monsters that inhabit the dungeon surely need to be able to move around without having to worry about setting off traps everywhere. Even if there is some way to keep the trap from going off, there's still the issue of a monster forgetting a particular door/corridor was trapped and possibly dying. Plus, in the case of exploding doorknobs, what nutjob keeps replacing them?

[@kabiansadi]

I had a player who had compulsion for go shopping on every town. But not shopping for magic itens, weapons, treasure maps. Just clothes, fashion. And I had to deal with an obscene amout of time spent on shops and clothes descriptions, while the entire plot for the campaign was frozen. That was the worst for me.

[@kaneconqueror6560]

One somewhat easy solution to get a party adventuring together is to let one player character be the quest giver, and DM fund a reasonable payment for the quest based on the givers backstory. This sets up a player to be the initial core of the group who recruits the others, and sets up an initial quest that can then branch or grow as desired. This tends to work a lot better than a random group spontaneously joining together for "random bullshit go!" to get them pushed out the tavern door.

[@reeven1721]

Hello Bob, I don’t know if you’ll do more of these but here’s an annoying behaviour I could’t submit in your survey: - When one player wants to or is specifically called by the DM to roll Perception or Knowledge or Insight, but then the ENTIRE group piles down with their own rolls. I always find it supremely upsetting because a) it steals the original player’s time to shine; b) it can only ever boost the odds in the party’s favor, multiple rolls is always the optimal decision; c) it takes longer to resolve.

[@hacksbeenjamin]

I hate this and used to just let it happen, but then I got tired of that and would say "cool, nice 18, however I called for a roll from player Y. Your character was doing X, correct?"

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Hmm I'm going to write this down. Definitely something I've experienced and sounds like it's worth a video

[@gardoniangardonian844]

This is a super easy behavior to curb! The players just want an action to do, so give em one. Do this for a few sessions and they will get way more creative. Example- Player #2: "Can I roll Perception check too?" DM- "Okay fine roll it. Anyone not making a perception check can roll investigation for looting the barrels. Anyone not doing either can roll nature to learn about nearby predators. Is anyone just standing ready with weapons in case of an ambush?" Worked like magic for me :)

[@thecandidman]

I've an artificer in my icewind dale game who's trying to lean into their smarts really well (he's stupendously smart irl) but they pull so much real world physics and theories to make sense of what I present as options to players. This video speaks to me so much! Haha. I'll share this to the group for shits and giggles 😂

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Haha, yeah it's good to reward those smarts when it aligns well with the game/adventure, but it's also good to keep it in check if it's going to create a weird tangent of conversation between one player and the DM :P

[@krispalermo8133]

3e multiclass rogue2/wizard3/expert1, CR:6 .. 6th-level feat: Craft Wondrous Items. Started out as rogue for the most skill points, took a bunch of craft skills and Profession( carpenter/wood worker) Cross-class skills 4pts(16pts) buys 2ranks in spellcraft, knowledge(arcane)2ranks, knowledge(engineering)2ranks, knowledge(physics)2ranks. wizard3 with Int:12+1mod gives total of 9 skill pts up spellcraft/arcane to 6ranks each. npc Expert class is 6pts +1 int mod. brings Engineering to 5ranks, and Physics to 5 ranks granting each skill a +2 synergy bonus with modifiers +8 skill check. 4 Levels of 7th-to 10th, raised Expert a couple of levels for more ranks in knowledge along with Alchemy. During down time, the player's PC was always wood or metal crafting some small scale working model studying .. physics. Then making Masterwork craft DC:20 skill check rolls to see how well the model turn out, follow with rogue/expert diplomacy/bluff rolls on how much extra he could fleece out of a merchant/noble for basically a toy. Side note other than diplomacy or bluff to bargain for item price value, grant a +2 skill synergy bonus from preform( acting)5ranks and profession(actor)5anks grants a +4 bonus in social bargaining rolls. With 3e rules rogue2/wizard5 opens PC up to the spellcaster prestige class Lore Master. Which could also be multi class built with rogue1/wizard1/sorcerer6. Note regarding needed feats, DMG section on Creating Magic trap items, all you need is Craft Wondrous Item, which with rule bending and creativity full fills the same use as Scribe Scroll, Craft Wand, and Craft arms & armor. So we created a 10th-level spell caster wizard limited to 5th-level spells. rogue2/expert3/wizard6/lore master4, :CR: 15. Then broke the rules on Disintegration, Create Water along with Destroy Water. House rule casting Destroy Water creates a volume of expanding oxygen which is very flammable. We throw together a non-magical blimp that could carry a few tons, then enchanted it as a Spelljammer. Sadly half of the game shop was there only for dungeon crawl and murder hoboism and just rolled their eyes at us. 2.) Since both of my gaming shop over a ten year time from starting with AD&D and closing with 3.5e ran legacy and generation campaign settings flowing time frames. You can have one set of PC wizards research and write books and set up a school, and then have a PC forty years along the time scale come from that school. Multi class rogue/fighter, " I don't .. NEED .. to Know the Physics as to why it works. I just only need to know how to build the blimp. " So we came up with our own Steam Punk setting to drop into the Forgotten Realms. b.) A group of rogues/rangers set up a bunch of trip lines coming down the mountain trail, then the orcs came rushing out and trip and tumble all over each other. One of the rogues look over to the military unit's wizards and says, " Physics." c.) AD&D Tomb of Magic score book had a 2nd-level wizard spell Metamorph Liquids, which turns water into wine, beer, whisky or whatever. All you need is a given sample to start with. So we up 2nd-level Create Water to 3rd-level Create Alcohol which when mix with a large amount of oxygen goes off as a Fire Ball with sonic concussion effects, just treat as TNT as listed in the PHB or DMG. . d.) Did you know there is a few videos on youtube where Sicily had a mafia war during the late 1800's over who would control the lemon ochers ? I had a few PC rogue/bards bribe a Drow patrol with maple candy and lemon cough drops/sour lemon heads and they paid him in a bunch of 10gp gem stones. The PC background was a copper smith and candy maker from Water Deep. When updated to 3e my rogue2/bard1/wizard3 CR:6 character instead of using Brew Potion to carry a spell effect it was making a batch of candy.

[@minaly22]

Honestly if people are scared of opening the door, there's probably a bigger problem than Hobbitism going on. The DM could've sprung a very mean trap on the players that traumatised them (not necessarily the DM of the current campaign, maybe a different DM altogether). One of the job of the DM is to inspire players to WANT to open that door, to WANT to have an adventure, to WANT to take risks. But I've seen so many DMs that are just 'all punish and no reward', throwing very High CR encounters in your face and saying "No you can't buy this overpowered magic item to prepare for hard encounters" in their campaigns and you simply can't fault players for being overly cautious and refusing to take risks. If the DM has shown tendency to make the door explode with 8d6 damage whenever someone touches it, eventually people will stop touching it. Any potential opportunity to roleplay dies when the character dies, after all. I thank you Bob for trying to help others solve problems, but this probably will need a follow up video on the lines of "How to not become the reason your players chose Hobbitism", because when theres a problem at the table, its usually more than one person at fault. The donkey really shouldn't be blamed for dragging their feet when its been all stick and no carrot. On another note, the unwillingness to immerse isn't just about opening doors. It could be something as simple as not being able to act in a way that is fitting to the character, or something more troublesome like acting the opposite of how a character should be (supposedly 'lawful good' characters doing chaotic evil things because player wanted to, etc). I personally find that this is a problem regarding Willingness and Knowledge. They might either be unwilling to 'get in the act', or don't know how to get in the act. Most people in this time and age simply don't know how to act like a heroic adventurer, and sometimes the problem is really that simple. I play a lot of Charisma characters like Bard and Warlock but I as a person have no idea how to do any sort of persuasion, because you know, introvert. And thus what usually happens is that my Charisma characters only did a handful of persuasion checks throughout the entire campaign that lasted a whole year. Just last week our Curse of Strahd run ended, and after looking through the entire roll20 chat record, my Spirit Bard only did four persuasion rolls total 🤷‍♀️. Thats the impact of the lack of knowledge right there. What do you mean I need to come up with some words to try and change a suicidal NPC's mind? What am I supposed to even say to the guy that lost their family and fervently want revenge? Because saying "Sorry for your loss" and "Your family wouldn't have wanted this" or other generic platitudes (the only things that pop into mind for people who aren't good in real life social situations) clearly is not going to work. In terms of willingness, a more succinct way to describe it is that some players do not want to do cringey things. Like they're trying to play a paladin with big HAM energy but can't bring themselves to talk that way because cringe. A good starting point to solve this problem is to remind the players that this is a safe environment and this is a game and nobody will mock them for their impression/performance of a HAMmy paladin no matter how good or bad it was. (Hopefully you gathered a table full of respectful people that won't mock others for this sort of thing....... ah who am I kidding, thats nigh impossible) EDIT: Someone in the comment chain here mentioned something really great and I wanted to expand on that. Its not wrong for DMs to try and give out new challenges, but it is definitely problematic when the DM doesn't allow for players to acquire the means to deal with those challenges. Sure, a DM can have every single door explode with 8d6 fire damage when you touch it. Players can just buy a ring of fire resistance, and this will lessen their apprehension when opening doors. The Bad Kind of Thing for DMs to do then would be to increase damage to 16d6 (basically nullifying the resistance), or to change damage type to anything except fire, or straight up not allow players to buy a ring of fire resistance (either directly banning the item, or indirectly disable players from buying it by not giving them enough gold, not putting up a shop for magic items, or giving constant excuses how 'the item is out of stock').

[@newbiegaming6090]

That kinda comment/feedback deserves so much more attention than they usually get... Sure, it's a "wall of text" for a comment, but damn it's on point!

[@nikitakazakevic1928]

As a new DM, I will consider your advice, my lord.

[@youngloenoe]

RPGs require imagination and performance. It becomes really difficult to become a good player if you are unable to imagine things and convey what you are imagining through performance. If you are being mocked for getting into character and behaving like them, then you are at the wrong table. Getting into character is a behavior that should be desirable. What's the alternative? "I attack." "you miss." "I shot an arrow." "you hit." How boring! Personally if I am going to take my time to create a game or play a game, then I am going all in! Let's be campy AF! Or else what's the point? Hope you have fun at your table! Take care!

[@the13inquisitor59]

I've got what amounts to two instant character deaths down to doors. One was an instant-death trap in a Starfinder module. The other was an edgy Sith in a dark room slamming said door on me and locking my poor droid in with him. That might as well have been an instant death trap, because lightsabres in FFG's Star Wars system are... unkind... to anything they hit.

[@Yolashillinia]

My DM will let us describe how we want to say things without forcing us to come up with the exact words, especially if there's a charisma roll involved that will allow us to infer how well I spoke. Like, "I want to grovel in front of the nobleman who bumped into me so I don't blow my cover" will let us continue the scene and then a couple lines later I had figured out how to proceed from there. It's allowed me to get closer to playing my character for who the character is and less of who I am, even if it does sacrifice a little bit of immediate drama. I do try to be in character as much as I can, because I enjoy playing him, but when I'm playing a character who's cleverer and more quick-witted than me, it sure saves me a lot of mental struggle not to have to act *every* bit of dialogue.

[@mashmachine4087]

oh no, I've just realised that I do this... One time, the DM specified that the police showed up in a wagon painted blue, and I was like "how did they get blue paint?" Because I happen to know that blue dye was really hard to come by until like, the 20th century... Maybe I have to watch out for when I do this in the future!

[@davidjennings2179]

Often when I come up against something like this I'll just pass it off by saying the NPC doesn't know the full production cycle, just where to buy blue paint from. It does slow the story down though, people will get hung up on those little details. I once had a player go on for a good ten minutes about ship design, I'd drawn a ship that I (and initially my players, I think) thought looked pretty good until this player insisted on grilling the crew and captain about where the mast was placed, the sail sizes and ballast. Important things, I'm sure, for ship design...not important for the game. If you do find yourself asking questions like that, please just take the DM's first answer and drop it. Catch yourself before you derail the session with pedantry.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

See now I appreciate that kind of observation, but it yeah it's all about how the group reacts to those sort of interjections. If they like it, keep doing it. If anyone seems annoyed, it's something to work on

[@ericconnor8419]

Egyptians made blue from limestone and copper rich minerals. We had woad, ultramarine paint from lapis lazuli, cobalt for stained glass and then indigo, but there was not a cheap, bright persistent synthetic blue until early 20th century. I'm sure they could have managed a dull purplish blue paint in the middle ages but it would fade.

[@vara202]

With things like that you have to remember. Blue dye was really hard to make... On earth. Your characters aren't on our Earth and there easily could be a source of blue dye for them.

[@vara202]

@@ericconnor8419 look up tyrian purple. It could be incredibly vibrant and was one of the most fading resistant dyes in existence. It was also mose expensive than gold and is literally the reason that purple is considered a royal color. Wearing it was a phenomenal display of wealth.

[@edwardtrainor8927]

Heh. I'm an older-gen gamer and we used to have a "No Bilbos" rule vs not having characters where "RPing in character" meant refusing to join the game proper. Everything comes back around. :)

[@camerongates3893]

The things that got me through my hobbitism phase was experiencing enough groups falling through and the realization that no player character truly dies. They just get put on a shelf. You can play them again in other games.

[@johnhume1]

From your teaser post of Bilbo smoking, I thought you were going to talk about players too stoned to play! That might have been funnier, but this is more useful.

[@warmmilk9480]

Oh damn I'm early. Always great addressing player behaviors though! And DM behaviors, of course. But even if it can be uncomfortable, it improves a game table when it's taken in stride.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Thank you! And yes, taking it in stride is the way to go!

[@nomukun1138]

5:55 Oh! this is a big regret I have with an old play group. I had an opportunity to change my character a little to make the game more interesting but I didn't take it. During a fight another player asked me, "Does [your character] see [my character] as a leader?" and I decided my character didn't. But he would not only have got a leadership bonus (it was Shadowrun with house rules, not D&D), it would have lead to some good storytelling moments. I should have Yes-And'd him and changed my character a little to make the game more fun.

[@nathanmichael167]

My favorite time this happen is when i was a spectating player. My wife was running her first campaign ,Shackled City, and we were quite a few episodes in when the fighter wanted to have a pet dog. GM broke out hte rules, thought it was cool and a great way to build some backstory to the player character. During the next few sessions the players wanted the Dog, a German Shepard, to be able to do things outside of RAW that caused the animal to take up as much time in session as a player. The player argued that the German Shepard is one of the smartest breeds and should be able to exceed the RAW rules for training animals and what an animal can do. She brought a 200 page book on German Shepard, the Breed, and wanted the GM to read it. The GM, finally frustrated during a session where instead of healing a party member the player used a potion on the pet, a player was drowning on another end of the battle field and the player sent her pet to rescue him, not herself. The pet at this point had no swimming abilities, but, german shepards are natural swimmers, as cited on a page in the book. GM could have held up, but decided to follow the rules very specifically, rolls included, as the frustration of all of us players with this animal was at a fever pitch . Poor little Guyser didn't make it.

[@hacksbeenjamin]

Shit like this is why I kinda hate DMing. At the end of the day someone is always just trying to force their way on you. Gave a player (not even a ranger, a warlock) a cr 2 dinosaur pet because I was just tired of saying no. Which prompted tons of confusion as to where it was at a given time, what it was doing, how it even got to where it is. It was forgotten so frequently by him and others until combat of course. I took a break from DMing a few months back and its been nice.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

I can't believe they wanted the DM to read a book about german shepherds xD I would have said, okay here's the dog/wolf stat block, here's the warrior sidekick rules, we can homebrew these to your liking but please put that other book away

[@nathanmichael167]

@@BobWorldBuilder LOL, probably my fault, so says my wife. In an earlier campaign she played a male rogue who had a love far away over seas. She would write me letters (as a man to a woman) as apart of her character development and I figured it was good to encourage role playing so i wrote back. I assumed it was some one offs or something. At some point it just got uncomfortable for me and I had to ask her to stop. But i think she got used to GMs going over and beyond for her.

[@aaronsomerville2124]

Thanks for the video; I've been playing since '81 and I still found it pretty insightful. I think that much of it comes down to incentives and expectations. Old school games levelled you for acquiring gold, not for combat. So caution was actually rewarded! You didn't have to fight the dragon, you just had to get it to leave the gold unguarded so you could his lair a spring cleaning (though, it's gonna be mad so probably don't hang around too long...). It's also why wandering monsters worked as a timer... you got nothing from them (no treasure) except danger, so you needed to get in do your stuff and exfiltrate before the creatures that were just wandering around found you and complicated your life. On the part about 'modern attitudes' and such. A long time ago I encountered a maxim that has led to good characterization ever since: your character must firmly believe one thing that you (the player) know to be *wrong*. That's really the secret to realistic characters... they must all be totally convinced of at least one thing that is obviously (to you) wrong. Far more important than doing a funny accent.

[@sageinit]

*incorrect or/and wrong

[@Carlos-Mora]

I would rephrase it to your character must believe in something that you, the player, doesn't. It doesn't necessarily have to be something factually wrong, but it can also be a different ideal, or a different way of interpreting the world

[@caseymalkiewicz6689]

I think Matt Colville made a pretty elegant solution to pure hobbitism. He always compares D&D to an action movie and points out how the best action heroes are RE-active. If the character doesn't want to risk safety and comfort, put that safety and comfort at stake. Don't want to leave you cozy cottage in the countryside to rescue an elven princess you didn't even vote for? Well if the wizard sacrifices her and completes his evil spell, the very land will wither and die, blight and famine will spread across the land. Why should you care about the orcish horde about to lay waste to the human kingdom, well the words of *mon empereur* "an army marches on it's stomach" and your lands are well known for their fertile soil and bountiful harvests. Why explore the ancient dungeon filled with traps for treasure when you make a tidy living selling pastries? The entrance literally opened up in your town square, if you don't investigate it, who knows what could creep from that stygian abyss?

[@brianhurd3355]

I, too was reminded of Colville during this video. I swear I heard him saying "Orcs attack!" at some point. It's a great plan and it works perfectly for hobbitism. Of course your peace-loving, pipe-smoking, complacent gardener would rather stay home - that's why the plot needs to make that not an option. This way you get the hobbits into the wagon with the adventurers and they can RP complain about it but it's a recipe for a great story and immersion.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Bingo. Even the shire was found to have been raided in LotR

[@llamatronian101]

Sometimes the real adventure is playing as members of the Free Army of Hobbiton, the last line of resistance against Saruman and his thugs, and also those assholes in the Hobbiton Free Army, who totally store your name.

[@PaulGuy]

You can't be a Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man if there's no neighborhood.

[@dittolord4877]

This entirely sums up the one behaviour I fear to see most in any Dungeons and Dragons game. Thank you for giving me a word for it.

[@pops8975]

I appreciate your example of how you’ve changed in time by remaining self aware of your actions. I think a great point Sly Flourish mentions in The Lazy Dungeon Master; ‘have players add to the description in as much as it wouldn’t effect gameplay’; It may help immerse newbies and perhaps put the ball in the Ego court and let them add to the theme as a cooperative group instead of a singular finger pointer.

[@gabrielrussell5531]

For the kinds of people who find "flaws" in everything: The reason they don't take the eagles to Mordor is that without an army on the ground they'd get killed by air-defenses.

[@Konpekikaminari]

This basically leads to the the common explanation- the Eagles have a say here to, and they're NOT in the business of messing with the Nazgul & whatever else defends Mordor skies

[@kagato23]

I prefer the webcomic I saw… the birds get hungry and sometimes eat a passenger. After witnessing this, the hobbits declared it “fucking walk-o-clock!”

[@BobGeis]

This makes me happy that I have great players.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

It's a great feeling! :)

[@captfuzzy1618]

Very early on, my fellow party and then myself as a dm suffered from this a lot (We had a terrible first DM). Thankfully we introduced the “there’s a reason for that” concept. If something seemed off or weird to them about how something should work, I’d either make them immediately roll perception or just tell them “there’s a reason for that”. If it’s just that I didn’t have a good understanding about something I’d say for them to ignore it as it wasn’t intentional and we’d all move on. Good way to let them voice their concerns and potentially reward their deductive reasoning. Plus it’s good for improv as you quickly retroactively try and fix it without them knowing.

[@havindatadhd]

I have struggled with the realism thing allot since my late teens and as of the last two years i have been trying to undo all that. I wasnt enjoying my faveroite fictions, comics, or games as much as i did as a kid and it finally dawned on me... thats cause i didnt have any expectations for anything nor did i need explinations for anything as a child. Since practicing this i am finding a renewed joy in just about anything imagination related be it film, book, game or show. (edit) ive also found doing this has helped my own creativity a ton!

[@hacksbeenjamin]

A lot means there is much of something. Allot means you've given someone an amount of something.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

It's very refreshing to put realism aside! :)

[@havindatadhd]

@@hacksbeenjamin dont care, you one of the rule sticklers talked about in this? 🤣🤣 jk jk

[@old_soul99]

I think I missed the initial question, but I once had a fellow player who, when I was taking a moment to count up my rolls and modifiers (which takes me a moment, because I need a second with math, even though it is basic addition) they would quickly count it up for me and say for me what my total was. This would be nice IF I had asked for it, but I didn't, and I really like telling what my check or damage is. Another thing that would've been fine if I'd asked was that they constantly tried to tell me what spells to take and why my choices were bad. These were not the only irritating things they did, but they were the biggest, and it saddens me to say, but I had to stop playing D&D with this person altogether because I didn't enjoy the game when we played.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Sorry you had to deal with that. Some players definitely believe there is a "right" way to play D&D, build characters, etc. But the only right way is the one that allows everyone at the table to have fun. It didn't work out with that player, but hopefully you're enjoying the game with a different group today. If not yet, I'm sure you can find a more welcoming group! :)

[@old_soul99]

@@BobWorldBuilder I've had more welcoming groups with much more fun games since then! I've just moved to a new city, though, so I need to find a new group!

[@9553shadow]

I mean if you are taking forever to count and slowing down the game then as a dm I feel like that player did everyone a favor by quickly calculating the total. The back seat player thing is bad tho.

[@MSP106]

I love this channel. So easy and relaxing to watch. Thanks Bob.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

I really appreciate that! :)

[@team4star1]

I know this wasn’t exactly the point of the video, but watching it has helped me understand my problems outside of dnd when it comes to trying to be funny and cool too much

[@KammaKhazi]

I have a conquest paladin in my group whose behaviour i guess could be described as hobbitism. He hides at the back of the group, even wanting the gnome enchantress to go first and flees from danger. I’ve tried rumours spreading of his cowardice and npc’s confronting him about it (one peasant literally had a crossbow and accused him of leaving her son to die). Other friendly npc’s have been sent to complete quests he has ran from and been killed or turned to darkness. i even have this this one enemy who is levelling up from multiple encounters he has fled from; the way he is going is probably going to become a major villain. Not really sure how to handle it, storywise and in older editions he would probably have an alignment change be stripped of all powers and become a fighter but that seems a bit harsh.

[@vara202]

Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor, just make sure you aren't targeting this player and being vengeful.

[@GigiLirail]

Have you tried to address this with the player directly?

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Yeah I would ask the player (out of game, not in front of everyone else) why they are so overprotective of their character. Maybe the cowardice is something they've intentionally established so the character can overcome it at some point? But conquest paladin doesn't seem to fit that very well lol

[@KammaKhazi]

Cheers for the advice folks, yeah i should talk to them. Sometimes it’s trickier playing with close friends to approach things. Every character he plays is the same lol.

[@krispalermo8133]

@@KammaKhazi Sad to say over my many years of RP from D&D, TMNT, Star Wars and Whitewolf/World of Darkness(WoD): Vampire, sooner or later a player will end up dropping their mask and RP their real selves. Cowards, jerks, and outright azz holes will come out. What I liked about WoD Changeling the lost, everyone had to pick one or two personality derangements. And people role play what is the most familiar to themselves. But you have to have a very good playing group you feel total comfortable around to drop your emotional social guards down and just be yourself.

[@Green.Country.Agroforestry]

A good GM will make an adventure out of a character trying to avoid danger .. Sometimes, when you jump out of the frying pan, you wind up in the FIRE :)

[@DungeonMasterpiece]

"Why can't I make a syringe to inject poison? It's so simple! Just a simple plunger inside a round tube!"

[@BobWorldBuilder]

That's sounds like something that happened lol, was it you or a fellow player?

[@crustybomb115]

at least its not someone explaining in detail how to make a fully functional thermobarric explosive weapon that would actually work within the world the players are playing in... and its even more egregious if they manage to explain the plausabillity of making nukes in game...

[@Alche_mist]

"If you're proficient at tinkering, roll for tinkering (Int-based). If it's a new concept in this world, the DC is quite hard and it would be leaky AF, so good luck operating it."

[@thodan467]

@@crustybomb115 aka greek fire

[@anthonynorman7545]

@@crustybomb115 how are players splitting an atom?

[@vibegoose439]

I just found this channel and it is helped alleviate some of my anxiety of running my first game with some of my friends, your content is much easier to understand to a noob such as I. Thanks and keep it up

[@Kelly-hh7jz]

If you, as a DM, have repeated issues with people opening doors, I'd suggest looking at how your sessions are designed to make sure you're not causing the paranoia

[@Graknorke]

this is one thing about D&D specifically. GMs are hostile and adversarial with the game and then get mad at their players trying to counter it.

[@AttilaTheOneOriginal]

@@Graknorke Sure some are, but not all. I don't think it's remotely fair to categorize all DMs as this way, as your comment seems want to do.

[@PXCharon]

There was a time, back when 2nd Edition was the standard, where the typical goal of most DMs was to achieve as much player mistrust, death, and fear as possible. Because if you did anything else you were a Monty Hall. Publications were sold at book stores describing how to be a DM. And they often hinged on building a level of subconscious intimidation of your players. Sit in front of a light source, sit in a taller chair at the head of the table. Maintain a tyrannical control over what sourcebooks your players buy and read (really?) and keep them paranoid of every thing by giving ambiguous answers, and rolling dice for no reason when an action is declared by a player. It's less common now to see this kind of attitude from a DM, but there's still a lot of people who DM because they want to win.

[@howlingarmadillo]

I had to deal with two players who had this problem with my homebrew and it was AGONIZING. Every goddamn plot point I felt like hours of work was being ripped to pieces in front of my because they were just obsessively dissecting everything in the name of realism. It was just plain stressful; I was putting all this effort into trying to make the best game I could and my efforts were just being stomped on. Like being under constant verbal attack. Took me literal years before I felt confident enough to DM again, and thankfully my new group has been playing the same campaign I ran back then and loving it. One of my other players from back then swears I was legitimately traumatized by these players, so running the campaign with a better group has been something of a healing experience for me, lol.

[@TalonSky]

Also DMs, it's perfectly okay for you to want to run a specific kind of game, so long as you're upfront about it. I only ever give my players a few restrictions on character creation, chief among them are: no evil characters unless we discuss it beforehand and you have a VERY good reason, and you must make someone who will be an adventurer and go on the adventure. If you want to start off as a reluctant hero, run it by me first and I'll make sure to have a scene in session one where you can play that out, but we have the understanding that by the end of that scene you'll come up with a reason for your character to go. I came up with these rules because of a past group where hobbitism was a constant issue in EVERY game. My players liked the reluctant hero troupe, but didn't grasp that part of the troupe is the hero DOES eventually go. I broke finally during a birthday one-shot I was running where a player played a 'pacifist who doesn't want to leave the town'. I had been upfront about what this adventure would entail, so I threw up my hands and told the player "Fine, this character doesn't go. Leave the room and don't come back until you've made a character that WILL go on the adventure, because our time tonight is limited." And what do you know, he came up with a 'greater good' kind of reason his character would go on the adventure. Lol.

[@thatonenerd2209]

Not only do I genuinely appreciate this video, but I genuinely appreciate that you admitted that you actually used to be a player like this! It’s nice to just see an example of a player changing and actually has me put a bit more faith in players that have a tendency for Hobbitism. I’ll definitely use this video when a situation like this comes up, very helpful! :D

[@broceollomon]

I was running a solo adventure for a friend of mine and he suddenly became overly cautious in a session, that his character was handling extremely well mind you, and basically forced me to give him an ally before he would progress. The session went well after I introduced a henchman for him, but I'm not sure why it got to that point.

[@jloost-gamer]

Especially your options at the conclusion are great. Switching campaigns, systems, or allowing players to play cowardly/safe/home-y characters is a very good tip :)

[@generalZee]

Obviously every group is different, and my group tends to have a good sense of humor about things, but when "unrealistic" things happen with my group it usually gets its own narrative all the sudden. Did a vendor give away a valuable item for cheap because the DM messed up the calculation? Well, later that night the guy went into the back room to look at his wife's family's prized necklace only to discover he accidentally sold it instead of the crappy model up front! Then his wife leaves him, and his kids openly mock him in the streets, and he blames those adventurers. Those rowdy, loud, obnoxious adventurers who insisted on seeing everything, and leaving with one cheap necklace, that happened to be the most expensive thing he owned. And now you have a dungeon boss.

[@godsamongmen8003]

The problem of not wanting to open a door is a valid attitude for players to have. If you were breaking into someone else's house and didn't want to get caught, you might be careful too. The whole thing comes off as a complaint that players aren't willing to stupidly charge forward all the time.

[@juliegolick]

I feel like you're describing two different issues here: 1. Players who point out "flaws" in the game (plot holes, anachronisms, logical fallacies, whatever). 2. Players who are overly cautious with their game-play because they're worried about negative consequences. These are two very different issues and need to be addressed differently. You can't deal with the player who pulls out "well actually..." as every second sentence in the same way you would the player who's scared that opening the door will kill their character.

[@aquabluerose7734]

I agree! I thing the first problem could be called "critique freak" and the second one is hobbitism.

[@thatcanadianguy7699]

"Just let the hobbits be hobbits" I... disagree. Being opposed to adventuring is pretty much completely antithetical to DnD at it's core. Now, you can easily play the reluctant hero ala Frodo (and Bilbo to an extent), because even though Frodo doesn't WANT to do this quest, HE STILL DOES. But my main point is about those players you mention who don't want their character to die, and have their character arcs planned out and such. To me (and this my be controversial)... they're pretty much the player equivalent of a Railroading DM. They refuse to let anything happen to their character that they don't want, like a DM who doesn't let the players solve problems except for the way the DM wants them to. Like a railroading DM, these players should really just write a book. DnD is, by its very nature, chaotic and dangerous. Hobbitism and players with pre-made arcs and all that are very much counter to that nature. Like you said, there's no wrong way to have fun (provided it doesn't hurt others), but having fun doesn't require DnD. There are other games to play, and other activities to partake in that are probably far better suited for those desires.

[@elgatochurro]

Very true, I've arcs planned for my characters but idk what will happen and it's wrong to be forcing my character onto rails instead of experiencing the story Players should be adventurous, if they're not then it's simply going to demand more out of the DM to get them to explore or investigate anything.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Yeah the other solution I provided at the end of playing a second campaign (maybe a different system) seems to align with your conclusion here about "there are other games to play" but some people just want to stick to 5e, and since the game has MANY rules as written ways to prevent characters from dying, I think it can work. The character is still going on adventures with the party, but due to their features, items, etc, they have a better chance of surviving than the others. Of course this won't be the preferred choice for everyone.

[@ShallieDragon]

Exactly. If a player has a character that simply is not interested in being a part of the adventure the DM created, then I believe the DM has the right to ask the player to make a new character. During Session 0, the DM and the players agree what campaign they want to play. The DM agrees to run the campaign that they agreed on, but the players ALSO agree to play characters that would WANT to participate in that campaign. And if people are so precious about their characters that they would rather not play the game than risk their characters failing (or worse), then they should probably play a game without those risks. There are other games (including tabletop RPG's) where the risk of injury or death are basically nonexistent, but can be just as fun or fulfilling as D&D. But it's that riskiness, that uncertainty, that makes D&D fun; with high risk comes high reward. Also, for the record, it's actually fairly hard to kill a D&D 5e character. Unless the characters are put into encounters that are very unbalanced for their level, the odds are actually in the player's favor. You regain all your HP on a long rest. You can spend hit dice on short rests to heal a large amount of HP. Healing spells and potions are plentiful (and quite strong, especially Healing Word). Even death saves succeed on a 10 or higher, giving them a 55% chance of success each time. In my experience, D&D characters only get killed if a) the encounter is really unbalanced and poorly planned, b) the DM is out for blood and WANTS to kill someone, or c) there is a perfect storm of bad luck and poor decisions. Beyond that, you're probably gonna be fine.

[@thatcanadianguy7699]

@@BobWorldBuilder I agree it is absolutely possible to play a game where the characters can't die. Could easily homebrew a rule to even just skip death saves and immediately be unconscious but stable, etc. If that's what someone wants, more power to them! I was just making sure that your advice wasn't overly simplified by people on the internet (as happens far too often). Like the whole "DM's should never say no" is the overly simplified version of "DM's should try to accommodate the players, and not railroad them. 'Yes, and', 'Yes, but' and 'No, but' are extremely useful things to keep in mind!".

[@UlsaPulsa]

Absolutely true, although it depends on the table and the game you're running (looking at the adventurer's domestic handbook from the DMs Guild). I don't think there's anything wrong with planning a character arc or having an idea for what direction your character's development might take, because you can work with your DM on it as well. I definitely agree that while having an idea, railroading how you get there isn't very suitable to D&D, especially if it doesn't involve the other people at the table. Character development, including planned changes, can be a lot of fun, *especially* if you as a player take the other players with you into that story arc.

[@f.a.santiago1053]

I'm currently running a Hunter: The Reckoning + Grimm TV show campaign. I asked the players at Session 0 if it was ok to have it be a serious campaign. They agreed. Not one episode has gone by without them making fun of serious situations and crack jokes at the table excessively, completely ruining the mood. I am so discouraged from running campaign any more because they flat out disrespect the narrative. Or at least that's how I feel. I'm thinking of just running something else in which they can have all the goofy, stupid fun they want without turning a dark, pre-apocalyptic, oh-crap-monsters-are-real world into a joke.

[@joshicus_saint_anger]

Great Video! I too was once a know-it-all and still struggle with bouts of "well actually" from time to time

[@reaganeidemiller7132]

I would bring up that hobbitism can also be a sign that the party is unable to get invested in the story the DM is making. There's no reason to do something on the behalf of characters the players don't care about after all. Doing things like getting quests from the king to save the kingdom is all well and good in a written and idealized story, but a group of players from a non-idealized world probably won't be very engaged cause real kings tend to be spoiled brats. The standard high fantasy formula used in novels doesn't work that well for that reason, it doesn't really give players a reason they actually care about to act.

[@aprinnyonbreak1290]

Yee. A lot of subversions that have by now become standard make some things difficult. A mindwarp I'm fond of is the helpful local church to some diety or another. They're unusually helpful, and try their hardest. They are not an evil cult passing in daylight. They are not housing an ancient relic of unfathomable power. They have not been infiltrated by demons. They don't secretly want to rule the world. They aren't even the last bastion of an ancient order of warriors. Just a bunch of friendly good lads who are happy to help as much as they can. That's it. The sheer amount of investigation they recieve is impressive.

[@Eaode]

this is imo why session zero and general communication at the table are so important. if there's no space for a discussion of "what types of adventures do we even WANT to have?" then a player might feel like the only way to steer the game towards what's satisfying to them is for their character to be difficult about the quests being given to them. In this sense hobbitism can be a maladaptive way to deal with a railroady GM. And the solution would just be an ego check for everyone and just being more open about what they want the game to be like. Just fuckin run session zero, y'all... it's important.

[@reaganeidemiller7132]

@@Eaode not even strictly a session zero really; the bigger issue I see is that DMs tend to go for more generic worlds when in reality tailoring the game to the players' real life passions is generally a better idea. It's more important than some people like to admit to play TTRPGs with people that share a ton of common ground with you, cause it's much more effective to get the entire group interested in something they personally care about. Cathartic I guess. Also trying to be historically accurate in any way really is usually a terrible idea; the real world culture of the middle ages in general was a horrific and violent mess, difficult to get players engaged in helping horrible people.

[@Gryffyth_Aurum]

Dude! Incredible video! Nice graphics and intro, good volume and cadence, great humor! Fantastic and comedic editing. 10/10 solid video. Instant sub.

[@PipHalsey]

This reminds me of a few situations I found myself in. Both as a player, and DM. As a DM, I once had a really annoying player. Who, while the players were exploring a haunted house, INSISTED on removing every single door of the giant megadungeon mansion they were exploring. Despite me telling him it would take him roughly 10 minutes each time, and he'd be making a lot of noise, thus I'd have to roll several random encounter checks every time. He still insisted on doing this, cause he thought the doors would randomly close behind them. Like, none of the doors in the entire mansion did anything like this, and I'm not a particular fan of that kind of trap anyway. Eventually the party made a joke about it, and constructed a fort out of all the doors he removed outside the haunted house to take long rests in. Another situation, with the same player, in the same game, was when they were in a tower in the said haunted mansion. They managed to knock down an expensive brass bell from the belfry, and were discussing how to break it up to sell it. This player insisted that because the bell was made out of brass, that his steel dagger should be able to cut through it like butter. And that he was a metal expert, so he knew what he was talking about. I'm not metal expert, but I'm positive a steel dagger can't just slice through a very thick brass bell like it's nothing. And was pretty sure it would just destroy the dagger, but had to argue with this guy way to long about it until I just let them break up the bell, cause it was really not worth all that much anyway (Ultimately like around 50 gold or so worth of raw brass) I had other instances with this guy trying to rule lawyer, but was extremely wrong but the rules he was trying to rules lawyer about, to where I had to open the player handbook, and read the rule out loud to shut him up about it. He once insisted sneak attack works with spells, and wouldn't accept my ruling that they don't until I read it out loud. Now a situation where I was a player. Once while playing on a West March style server, me and some random party members were going to explore the Underdark. We were all around level 10, playing as highly experienced Adventurers, who had actually taking several trips already into the underdark. So at the beginning of the game, while we were waiting for everyone to show up, our characters were chatting, and shooting the shit. (This was a text game, btw.) While we did, there was this NPC the Dm described. Who was all brooding, and mysterious. Wearing a hood to hide his identity. My character tried to talk to him, but he barely spoke a word to the group. When everyone showed up, my character (Who I tend to play as pretty anti hobbit, which will soon be very ironic.), took the lead, and encouraged everyone to follow him down into the tunnels. There was no objections from the other players, who were eager to start playing... But the DM got extremely pissed off at me, out of character. Telling us that we were leaving our guide behind. Which caused confusion from the entire party. The NPC, who hadn't spoken a word to us so far, apparently were suppose to be the guide. To a bunch of heavily experienced adventurers. A guide to what? Wouldn't say. We were under the impression we were just exploring for exploring sake. The main mission of the West March campaign at the moment, was actually to chart the unexplored underdark region, after all. We technically knew where we were going, just not what was at our location. But the DM made a huge stink about it, and I argued his NPC never even spoke with us, and that we technically didn't need a guide, but if he wanted to lead us somewhere, that was fine. So we went back to retrieve this guy (Why he didn't just follow us, I have no idea.), and insisted on him 'guiding' us for what ever reason. But, not really trusting this guy, for good reason, my PC began to question him. Where we were going, who he was, etc. He wouldn't say a word, except to state that my PC talked to much. Getting annoyed, my PC stopped following him, and told him if he didn't get answers, he was turning back. Both IC and OOC I was annoyed. This felt like and obvious trap, the DM wasn't even trying to hide it, and was getting pissy ooc cause I was calling it out. Asking why I was being so mean to his character. So what did the NPC do? He cast silence on my character. I honestly considered just attacking him than and there. He had cast a spell on my character, that could easily have been seen as a hostile action. But not wanting to be accused of murder hoboing, I just made my character be true to his word. He flipped the npc off, and turned around. At which point the DM said a magical hole opened up, and swallowed up my character. No save. This would apparently teleport me into the dungeon we were going to anyway, and he did the same to the other PCs soon after. But at that point I was pretty done with the game, and requested to back out officially, being pretty fed up with the DM.

[@RemnantTheWolf]

I once played a Bilbo Baggins type "No adventure for me" wizard. They loved their books their libraries and their homes. That was all they wanted. But I balanced this with the DM and a player that would act as my "Gandalf" always encouraging me on to adventure. I think the character type can be great in DnD but you as a player have to always be ready to make that character prone to pushing for sake of gameplay. Remember. Bilbo may not have saught adventure. But he still went on one when presented.

[@AMinibot]

Honestly, our DM has a fantastic strategy for when any of us make a pithy remark about her worldbuilding - she just makes it canon. Like oh?? you've come up with something stupid to say??? that's part of the world now, you have to live with that knowledge. This is how we ended up in a Dwarven merch store called Rock Topic.

[@girlville]

this is a good video!!! i've definitely come up against this kind of thing before, it reminds me a lot of like a related or sub-phenomenon where the player will treat the game as some kind of chaotic loot-acquisition simulator? like, constantly assaulting absolutely any NPC they meet, including unplanned ones, in broad daylight for their loot and forcing the DM to try make the world react to this unexpected moment in a way that makes sense, completely stopping the game in it's tracks

[@Xuecnahc]

Good video. I definitely like the content you create. I do get annoyed at players refusing the participate in the adventure... Although I also feel like the risk involved in the situation is also a great source of fun, no chance to get hurt equals a lesser earned reward. That being said, no ones fun is also not an option but then the DM, or other players should speak with the problem players or find a reason to integrate him/her/it. It does not have to be the DM, player pushing other player is the most natural, less intrusive way to do it. I would recommend more experience players to include more the reductants ones in the story instead of the DM having to force them to do some actions.

[@chriswolfe403]

this is a variation of what I suggested, it's neat to see so many GMs have this issue too

[@David13ushey]

My players: "We're going to stay in our base." Me: "Laugh Evilly." My Player: "On second thought... let's do X." My players have learned that wherever they go, adventure is going to find them. They can go to it, or they can deal with it when it comes to them.

[@brandonogden3498]

I once refused an adventure, but the other player fully agreed. We were told to clear bandits off of a base that was full of super-tech gizmos. We went & cleared the base, but found a hidden area underneath it full of steam pipes and adventure! I waltzed into the adventure, promptly got blasted by a random steam pipe for over half my hp, and we left. Neither character knew about the weird super-tech stuff, it didn't seem to have bandits, we were out of ways to restore my hp - there was no reason to continue marching into the place that (to our characters) seemed to be an obvious death trap.

[@zacharyp15]

I'll admit that I have been a hobbit before and looking back, it was pretty annoying But like anything, I think there is a balance between being a hobbit and motivating players. I'm sure that there are parties that would go on a perilous quest where most of them could die just because a random NPC quest-giver told them too, but a DM shouldn't expect all parties to want to fight their way to the 89th layer of the abyss because the NPC wants yummy tea leaves and will pay them 3 copper to do so. Either way, a conversation is the easiest way to find the balance to enough character motivation.

[@plagueofjoe]

Agreed. One thing I've noticed particularly with a lot of newer DMs and lower level games, is they're so afraid of rewarding the party. Offering 60 gold to split 5 ways is not going to make anyone want to do whatever little quest you've written up. Just up the ante. Trust me, I'm a super mean DM, giving them a good bit of gold relatively early in the game isn't going to spoil them. There's not that much they can do with it so long as you don't just hand them the DMG and say "buy whatever magic items you want."

[@manzana9072]

"I don't *have* to, I *GET* to" This single phrase is absolutely great

[@Joelseph2001]

As a dungeon master I find it difficult to commit to a player death. Even if it wasn’t in the cards and it is literally how the dice fell, I always find a way to lessen the impact. Do you have any advice or ways of thinking that may help circumnavigate this unease?

[@DatsVatSheSaid]

Only one way really, realize that your player's characters succeeding and surviving isn't your responsibility but theirs. Your job is to put plunder, peril and a good narrative in front of them. Their job is to survive, succeed and advance the narrative.

[@hand-drawnanimations8763]

Know that the players actually having a chance of dying based on their actions makes the game WAY more engaging. Your players like the game and are engaged because of the story, but if they know that they could die if they aren’t smart (or just make bad decisions), they will be much MORE engaged and much more attached to their character. Let’s say you’re playing a board game and you always win. Sometimes the game is close, it looks like you could lose… but you win anyway. For me at least, that’s a lot less interesting than playing against an opponent whom I actually lose to sometimes.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

In my very recent experience running an intentionally-deadly game of Dungeon Crawl Classics, rolling all my dice 100% in the open really helped. When it's behind the screen, I'm always tempting to lower damage to PCs so I don't kill them. This was also an in-person game, but even using a VTT, just making sure to roll everything so the group can see means it's just up to the dice!

[@silversugar2140]

Honestly. My solution to this is to just...have options to make deaths reversible upfront and clear before the situation even arises. I mean there already are, but, I think it's more to do with...being upfront to your players about this. Some people will never be okay when they lose a character (and for them I'd generally suggest not playing in games where death is an option. If you include death in games that should always be disclosed in a session zero.) For those who are not wholly against the idea and choose to accept playing under those terms but still struggle with that kind of loss (open communication should always be checked in on and I recommend a flagging system in case things get too real or genuinely triggering.) I think it's appropriate to have a genuine period of mourning. In and out of character. It doesn't have to take long just an acknowledgement of everyone's feelings, and you don't have to halt the narrative to do this. Give the PC a chance to shine in their death. Give them a final word, a bonus action, or something that slows time down to give people time to process in the moment. Preferably you have the discussion of what to do if you die above game outside of a session but if you're already in a campaign and dealing with this currently then I suggest a brief pause to talk with the player about options. Maybe a god could revive them in exchange for their loyalty, maybe they get raised by an evil necromancer but they "come back right" (Or wrong, either way, maybe use this time to give the player an opportunity to change their build?) Maybe the player uses a backup or plays an NPC until the party can find a solution...endless possibilities really. In DnD, death can be very temporary to the point I'd almost say cheap depending on the tone of the game. There are a lot of ways to overcome it in ways that are truly satisfying, but I also don't believe they all have to be instant either. It's okay to take your time. DnD can be a fantastic way to explore aspects of humanity and I truly believe it is healthy to explore death as well and to try and encourage players to be creative with it as well. After all, you couldn't have a safer place to do so than in fantasy! Hope this helps and makes sense. It's been a day and I'm running on fumes. Take care!

[@juliegolick]

Let me question your premise for a second: is it a problem to avoid PC death? Maybe your players WANT a game where PC death isn't on the table, and certainly not due to bad dice rolls. I know that for me personally, I probably wouldn't play in a game where there was a chance my character could die because of random chance. Check with your players and make sure that you're all on the same page - they might surprise you!

[@Ari_Dupree]

One of the nice things about players waffling over The Unknown is that there's often a good opening for any player willing to be the Tanky Brave Boy With Big Heart and Tiny Brain. It can be very fun to play a character who boldly rushes in whenever the party spends a little too much time bickering.

[@razorboy251]

Great video. I am very frustrated by the "reluctant adventurer/I'd rather stay home" characters that players sometimes make, to the point where I include a reminder in my campaign primer that players should make proactive characters who want to adventure and I veto those characters in session zero.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Well said!

[@9553shadow]

No sane person wants to adventure. They should be forced to. And that is not only up tu the player.

[@hexidecimark]

If someone shows up to session zero with a character sheet filled out, we fill the garbage bin with that sheet. Building characters together is and has been a best practice.

[@PabbyPabbles]

I get how refusing to go on the adventure relates to Hobbits but I don't get how the other stuff relates to Hobbits. Martin-ism ("What was Aragorn's tax policy?"), Deadpool-ism, and Hobbitism maybe?

[@ancientdarkmagic1409]

This is why session zero is super important. It puts everyone in the same page where the Dm and Players can get to a middle point of what type of campaign or one shot they want to run.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Absolutely! Session 0 and mid-campaign check ins can save the game!

[@wiiplayers19]

I usually ask my players two questions in session 0; 1) Why has your character decided to embark in the one vocation with the highest mortality rate? And 2) why do they require the assistance of everyone else at the table in order to achieve that. These two questions usually help drive personalized backstory which in term helps prevent hobotism in my opinion. By forcing the players to consider those two things before even rolling a single die, it gets them to consider the potential danger of being an adventurer, but also to create camaraderie with the other player characters. At least, that’s how it’s worked so far.

[@jeffersonian000]

My group is composed of experienced DMs that are also either engineers or draftsmen. We love inserting reality into our fantasy. As to Doors, we have had the most difficulty getting through Doors, to the point where we refer to impenetrable Doors as being made from Doortanium. In a recent game, an indestructible Door at the start of the campaign ended up as a shield used throughout the entire campaign.

[@ms.aelanwyr.ilaicos]

A friend of mine tried to invent the hot air balloon in-game. That got noped pretty quick.

[@thefallenmonk605]

That would be a fun side quest. A hot air balloon with no controls. It takes them too high in the air nearly kills them and they are blown out into the unknown wilderness.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Hahah yeah sounds like that could clash with a fantasy theme

[@ms.aelanwyr.ilaicos]

@@thefallenmonk605 Oh, don't worry, he had thought out adjustible heat sources and weighing down the balloon with matter contained in extradimensional spaces. 😏

[@elementzero3379]

This sounds like a cool downtime project. It would take time and resources to turn the concept into a functional device. It probably won't impact adventuring too often, as they are slow and fragile (wyverns, gryphons, giant eagles, etc...). It would undoubtedly be a fun invention to have attributed to your character by both contemporaries and future generations. It really depends upon the player's intention and willingness to invest in the idea.

[@ms.aelanwyr.ilaicos]

@@elementzero3379 It was a "I cast Fabricate and make a hot air balloon" situation. No pre-planning, no check attempted. He hadn't even established his character's awareness that hot air rises. Long term invention? Sure. We had a crossbow specialist invent the detachable bayonet (and the design for a compatible crossbow to mount it on) over the course of several sessions, making several checks, and working with skilled NPC craftspeople. Totally chill. The in-universe name was "the Duncan dagger", which speaks to the fun of leaving fingerprints on the world, like you mention. Saying "I come up with the idea of a hot air balloon and then magically create it on the spot" was a very different beast.

[@vurrunna]

"I can't believe the party's just standing here and not just opening the door!" - Party member who is also just standing here and not just opening the door

[@TomieGG]

I think the DM shares some of the responsibility to make the adventure relevant to ALL the players at the table in some way. Obviously every group is different, so the DM has to identify and ask players why they want to be at the table. Refusal of Call is part of the Hero's Journey so DMs shouldn't see it as a bad thing if players are risk adverse. This is just another aspect of DMing and part of the game. If the DM sets it all up so that the characters have plenty of motivation to run the adventure, but the players don't want to engage ie "lets just get on a boat and go somewhere in the opposite direction instead" then I believe its totally justified for the DM to say "Ok where are you going, what are you doing, and we can play again in 2-3 weeks when I'm prepared to run that content or we can run the content I've spent my free time to prepare." Sometimes its best to be real with your players.

[@J2982able]

I love when people flake after start time, and the other players are like "we can just run something else" ... No, no we really fucking can't. I have spent every free minute for the last week working on THIS campaign. Not some other one.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Yeah I definitely do not think the DM should be forcing players to accept a certain game or get out. It's about collaboration, and it's ALWAYS best to be real with your players!

[@elgatochurro]

"it's the DMs fault we refuse to participate!"

[@Magnus2dead]

Why is it left to the DM to always provide more and more motivation? Why isn't what breaks the threshold of the refusal of call the situation the DM actually presented and the backstory of the hero already refusing, but this hook brings them to the journey? The whole point is to adventure, so if you refuse it why even play? This is a group game where everyone is going on the adventure together and it can't be done with just one person trying to drag the group along, it needs to be a cooperative experience. Be the Bilbo that went on the adventure or Aragorn who did return to his people and became king. The background was the refusal, the hook brought them to accept it.

[@elgatochurro]

@@Magnus2dead anytime a player refuses a hook without a reason means the DM might have to stop the entire game and ask... What hook WILL work? It's not like the other PCs are gonna try to convince them otherwise for you

[@gamergirl209]

Trying to encourage players to explore is always where I struggle as a dm. Players have seen a portion of the towns, they have a plot device in their back pocket and aren't looking at it. Finally had an old timer whack it with their walking stick and say what's that glowing object. Wild antics ensued. It was great. And now I need an extended wild magic table

[@simethigsomethingidfk]

Honestly I find characters refusing to engage with the story is 9/10 times a dm problem not a player problem. If you as a dm see a player setting up a smart and cowardly character, or a overly logical vault of information. They will ask "why are we doing this" and if you dont have a answer you cant be surprised when they say "then im not doing it". That is not refusing to get immersed in the world that is being OVERLY immersed in the world to the point they are probably going against what the irl player actually wants out of the game. They are too in character basically. So, if you say "go slay this dragon for a 1000 gold prize" and the cowardly wizard says "Im not risking my life for 1000 gold" maybe find something to motivate your characters and force them into the story (as the irl player probably wants) rather than be angry at the players for not engaging with the story. Just saying "Im the dm you should trust me to make a interesting story" is not adequate motivation for the actual in world character who has no idea your 1000 gold dragon slaying quest will lead into saving the world.

[@KnicKnac]

I play D&D as escapism and social interaction, since working nights I don't always get to hangout with friends. Glad I fell into this hobby back in '04.

[@JCQuickDIY]

I have a couple of hobbity players in my game who won't engage with things unless they are 100% sure of the outcome. I intend to turn that Player behaviour into a character flaw to be challenged as part of their stories - by having NPCs call them out on it or forcing their hand a bit more during the game. It kinda makes sense for new players who are learning how the game works at the same rate as their characters. And others get caught up in role play which makes them hobbity. 'Why would my PC go out of their way to engage with the random encounter?' kinda thing. I've started telling my players that their character motives are just one tool to drive the story and explore the parts of my world that they are interested in. If you want to engage with something as a player then just do it and justify your character's actions after, even if it's by accident or irrational. People behave irrationally all the time, they're not constantly thinking about why.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Right, to an extent, D&D characters should act like the "idiots" in horror movies who follow strange sounds down into the basement even though the light switch doesn't work. That's where the thrill is!!

[@9553shadow]

@@BobWorldBuilder only someone with an int score of 8 or less would do that. And forcing players to be stupid is not a good idea.

[@hexidecimark]

Your players are giving you good feedback. You need to focus on things that target their characters' motivation and consider hooks to be largely worthless if they are ignored.

[@hostiusasinhostilityhostil7853]

@@BobWorldBuilder I respectfully disagree - this is a certain type of character, perhaps even a certain type of player's mindset, that can definitely work, but shouldn't universally dictate how dnd's played, and in my opinion flies in the face of what fundamentally makes ttrpgs such a unique hobby: they are all about _meaningful_ consequences, good or bad, and the player's choices have power in dictating what these consequences are. Take away serious player choice from dnd, and you have a clunkier, less satisfying JRPG with even more lootboxes (dice, etc.). Going with this idiot-in-horror-films line of argument, let's say the characters are in that exact situation: there's likely a monster down there, maybe there are alien-cannibal-clowns, there could even be the ultimate threat of rusty nails. But there's also the rest of the house (read: dungeon) to consider, there are the house's surroundings (the overworld), there's that one guy's army-nut uncle's house a drive away (big city barracks); there are endless ways the players could deal with that basement (door). They _could_ go through there immediately/right after checking for traps, and face something they're not prepared for, or they could use all these other options, which should have meaningful consequences. What if the monster's been weakened, and they could kill it now, but that means stepping into the unlit basement and potentially being eaten? What if they decide to play it safe by stopping by the uncle's house, but going over there for help/heat gives the monster time to regenerate, catch somewhere else unawares, or reconstitute with the house itself? What if they opt to stake out the house nearby, having cornered the monster, but this is just the beginning? (There's an entire plothook there in theory.) What if they leave and don't come back, and some plucky teens (and their little dog, too!) drive up in their van, unmask the villain to see who they really are, and get the police bounty from that? (That's other adventurers coming in to sweep up and glory-steal.) Or... the party could weigh all this up out-of-character, but then in-character, throw caution to the wind, go for it and see what unfolds! Perhaps that's part of the fun for the group. So above, there are so many consequences that could occur from not opening the door in a dungeon that could end up being just as much fun, if not _more_ to some players, than just opening the door and going out swinging, that I don't feel this argument holds water in a general dnd environment - if anything, like everything in dnd beyond the rules, everyone needs to be onboard with whatever you're playing, and what the expectations of the game are. I know I'd hate this kind of thing at my current table, but at a more combat-focused table, I think there'd be genuine merit to it. tl;dr: This has its place at some tables, but I don't think it applies well to dnd broadly speaking (not to mention, it was suicidal to do this in old-school dnd, and if your current DM was playing then...). As always, session 0 is vital.

[@Shu_BLN]

Great video Bob. I have send this to many players and found myself in many aspects of this. Learned so much!

[@Randomizer411]

Dude I love your videos, but "just run two games" is up there with "just kill their character" in how bad of advice it is. As a DM, my time is already so precious and I don't need more voices in the D&D sphere putting higher and higher expectations for players to put on DMs. Running a game is a huge undertaking, and running two games simultaneously is not possible for most normal groups

[@ZeroKitsune]

Huge agree here

[@StellaStormtheDruid]

oooh a slice of life game where the PCs are important NPCs of the adventure game would be sooooo good

[@adolchrystin]

I kind of disagree with the first part. Realism in fantasy doesn't mean it should be based on our world physics. The world has magic, but it should still be part of physics, with magic. Just saying, "because magic." is a lousy excuse. D&D or other Fantasy system has their own magic rules. The realism should be based on the system.

[@ms.aelanwyr.ilaicos]

But it can be pretty contrived and still fall within the four walls of the mysics of the world, particularly in a busy IP like D&D.

[@vonakakkola]

depends on what do you mean with "realism" surely "because it's magic so who cares about logic" is a wrong idea and it break immersion, you still can have a logic and a realistic magic system, but there's A LOT of irrealism in this system: weapons, armour, shields and life points don't work like in d&d, if realism should be based on d&d system it would be completely different

[@BobWorldBuilder]

In my experience, it's far easier for my players and I to collectively agree on the laws of real world physics (as a foundation for fantasy worlds) than collectively agree on a new/fictional laws of physics

[@digitaljanus]

The word that usually gets used is "verisimilitude". The fantasy world doesn't have to conform to our real-world rules, but it should feel consistent and lived-in in accordance with its own rules. But on that point: If your fantasy world does diverge greatly from the real world in significant ways, you need to constantly remind players of that, and maybe reinforce it by making it relevant to them. E.g. If you have more than one moon in your fantasy world, that's a neat detail and a classic fantasy trope, but if you don't constantly make it relevant, the players are probably going to forget and default to real-world assumptions. They're going to ask "Is there a full moon?" instead of "Are any moons full tonight?" But if everyone is born under the sign of one of the three moons, and that's the second or third question every new NPC asks in conversation, now it's important to the fabric of your world. Or if one moon gives clerics a +1 to their spell attacks and save DCs when it's full and another one does the same thing for wizards, now the multiple moons are really important to your players.

[@petebyrdie4799]

I now feel so bad for DMs who suffered my nonsense when I was in my teens and early twenties.

[@thecookiemeister5374]

Being scared of opening a door usually means that the DM punishes players for being careless, harshly. Or, another dm did the same. You want your players to get immersed? Them not wanting to die is pretty immersive, because why the hell would someone want to go into a haunted house without an incentive? If you hate people being cautious, you hate immersion, because that’s exactly WHAT immersion is. If you want everyone to act like morons who just want to “get it over with” then you’re not immersed, because your life isn’t on the line.

[@hexidecimark]

Absolutely this.

[@hamer5171]

5:45 wasnt something that was intentionally done but it did end up spawning my current most favorite character ive gotten to play / the most fun campaign ive been apart of