View Full Version : My Latest (Scarlet Witch)
If you're into this type of thing, I hope you enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx_Go7kClCQ
Psyren
2022-02-08, 10:27 AM
1) Is there a summary of the build for anyone who doesn't necessarily want to sit through a ~30 minute video to get the gist of what you're going for?
2) What's the overall goal of this build? Fidelity to the character and recreating as many of their abilities and iconic moments as possible regardless of overall viability? Focusing on D&D effectiveness (like being a powerful controller or debuffer) with fidelity being a secondary concern? High damage and blasting to represent her emotional peak?
3) Are there check-ins the viewer can jump to in order to understand what we've got so far at common campaign breakpoints? (e.g. Level 3, Level 5/6, Level 8/10, Level 14/15, high levels)
In all of the above cases, breaking up the clips in the video itself for textual breakdowns of where we're at and what we're working towards (similar to the asides you do to highlight this or that subclass or feat and explain why we're not taking it) would be useful. The obvious preference would be for everyone to sit through the whole thing and some people certainly will, but you'll also get more folks to do that if you pique their interest / whet their appetite with some kind of preview or summary of your conclusion, even just something in the video description.
1) Is there a summary of the build for anyone who doesn't necessarily want to sit through a ~30 minute video to get the gist of what you're going for?
2) What's the overall goal of this build? Fidelity to the character and recreating as many of their abilities and iconic moments as possible regardless of overall viability? Focusing on D&D effectiveness (like being a powerful controller or debuffer) with fidelity being a secondary concern? High damage and blasting to represent her emotional peak?
3) Are there check-ins the viewer can jump to in order to understand what we've got so far at common campaign breakpoints? (e.g. Level 3, Level 5/6, Level 8/10, Level 14/15, high levels)
In all of the above cases, breaking up the clips in the video itself for textual breakdowns of where we're at and what we're working towards (similar to the asides you do to highlight this or that subclass or feat and explain why we're not taking it) would be useful. The obvious preference would be for everyone to sit through the whole thing and some people certainly will, but you'll also get more folks to do that if you pique their interest / whet their appetite with some kind of preview or summary of your conclusion, even just something in the video description.
Thank you for the feedback!
1. I don't have a summary publicly available. With the notable exception of Treantmonk and Nerdarchy, most of the youtube build channels like Tulok, D4, MMM have theirs behind a paywall. When the channel is large enough I'll make a decision on how I want to handle that. But for now, it's just the video since that already takes an insane amount of time to make.
2. Definitely check out my channel video (its like 1min long) for a more detailed answer, but short answer is that character fidelity and accuracy is paramount to what I'm doing. Other channels like Tulok make builds that "feel" like the characters and I want to go in a very different direction by doing what I'm doing. You'll also notice that the video and my description and choices match. When I talk about a Fire Bolt, the character is actually using a power that represents that Fire Bolt choice. I'm not aware of any other channel that does this. It may sound minor, but it's huge for me, and a major gap in the "market" that was important for me to fill - for my own personal preferences.
3. I only have the chapter breakdowns in the video. I've done a mathematical breakdown of my builds and their effectiveness in another video (10min long) on my channel called "ranking my builds". I don't do this for my character builds because keeping them between 20-30 minutes is important to me. I didn't want to do the treantmonk/d4 thing of hour long builds (for my own sanity) and I personally want much more detail than tulok's 10 min videos provide.
Hope that answers your questions. Happy to hear more if you have it :)
Psyren
2022-02-08, 02:57 PM
I'm glad you mentioned D4 because he's a perfect example of what I mean. You're right that his patrons/premiums/etc get the full level by level writeup and that's a fine perk/model. But even the free watchers of the video can hit a timestamp and see something like "Level 7 (Artificer 6)" in big text across the bottom of that part of the video and stay anchored as far as where you're at with the build. That's helpful for build guides because not everyone who wants to give a particular build a try is going to be playing all the way from level 1, or they might want to hop around to see where some of your earlier build choices pay off later.
More importantly I think these kind of text additions (a) improve accessibility of your video - people don't have to remember things like "wait, where did he say was the ideal place to dip Fighter again?" - and (b) don't add any extra speaking time to your video which serves your goal of keeping them to a specific length.
On a more positive note I think your overall goals of hitting a duration somewhere between Tulok and D4/TM, and building more to realize a concept than raw DPR are a worthwhile differentiator/niche. (I do get bored of all the videos that say "variant human and custom lineage are the only options!")
I'm glad you mentioned D4 because he's a perfect example of what I mean. You're right that his patrons/premiums/etc get the full level by level writeup and that's a fine perk/model. But even the free watchers of the video can hit a timestamp and see something like "Level 7 (Artificer 6)" in big text across the bottom of that part of the video and stay anchored as far as where you're at with the build.
All my builds have this exact thing. Click the time stamps, they should show up. I do the same thing for features and spells, important ones I dedicate entire slides, with breakdowns of the feature itself and how it fits.
On a more positive note I think your overall goals of hitting a duration somewhere between Tulok and D4/TM, and building more to realize a concept than raw DPR are a worthwhile differentiator/niche. (I do get bored of all the videos that say "variant human and custom lineage are the only options!")
Thanks!
I'm a bit worried about the custom lineage/vuman thing because most of the characters I build will be humans, by the nature of pop culture (most pop culture characters are human). It's something I'm aware of for sure.
Bleh, video only content sucks.
Have fun doing it I guess.
Saelethil
2022-02-09, 11:06 AM
Bleh, video only content sucks.
Have fun doing it I guess.
Or maybe it’s just not for you. No need to be an *** about it.
Or maybe it’s just not for you. No need to be an *** about it.
Advertising video based content, where you make money (or video rank, which leads to views and money) based off views, is similar to commercial content. The person sharing it has incentive to force people to consume it in a fashion that earns them video views instead of a way that is pleasant to consume.
When asked for "hey, can you describe it briefly, so I don't have to watch a 30 minute video", the response is "no, go watch". I find this (quite predictable through many content creators) rude, and the experience (of being told that asking information in any context that doesn't get video views is unacceptable) sucks. The person is acting as a salesperson for their product. It is a lot like commercial content that way, which this board has rules limiting to one thread above for good reasons.
On a forum where people are communicating through text, saying "nope, I am using this to promote a video, if you don't watch my video and get me views, go away, this isn't for you" when I open what looks like an interesting post (Hey, a Scarlet Witch build) makes me sad. It adds noise to the forum.
Or, in short, "video only content sucks".
Psyren
2022-02-09, 12:41 PM
All my builds have this exact thing. Click the time stamps, they should show up. I do the same thing for features and spells, important ones I dedicate entire slides, with breakdowns of the feature itself and how it fits.
My bad - it wasn't present in the first timestamp (levels 1-5) so I had missed it in the others. So that's good.
With that said - here's the bigger issue I see with your format compared to D4 and TM et al. Because you're focused on builds that are emulating a specific character, it's difficult to tell at a glance what the majority of that build consists of. If I want to be Scarlet Witch for example, I may not need a full level by level breakdown off the bat but it would be helpful to know whether you consider her to be mostly Wild Mage Sorcerer or a Genie Tomelock or an Enchanter Wizard etc - because that is going to drive my decision to follow your build even moreso than the character. If I don't feel like being a Tomelock this campaign then that is going to disqualify your build for me no matter how much fidelity it has to the source material. (That's an example, I wasn't actually sure what the majority of your build consisted of.)
You compare that to a D4 or TM guide, they often multiclass or dip, but you still know right away what the majority of their build consists of without having to wade through the video or check multiple timestamps first. And knowing that helps me make the decision of do I want to spend 30 minutes listening or go to one of dozens of other build guides out there that are being less coy.
Thanks!
I'm a bit worried about the custom lineage/vuman thing because most of the characters I build will be humans, by the nature of pop culture (most pop culture characters are human). It's something I'm aware of for sure.
Yeah it kinda sucks since you're not even trying for optimized damage > all like some of the other channels. But you're all going to end up with vhuman anyway :smalltongue:
My hope is that once MotM is available for more optimizers who didn't want to shell out for WotC's scummy bundle, we'll start to see more builds using the nonhuman/non-CL race options. It's a bit naive on my part since for the vast majority of optimized builds, a bonus feat > every other racial especially since that's the only way to start the game with an 18 in your primary stat under PB/array currently, but I can still see instances where the enhanced races at least get within striking distance.
Dr.Samurai
2022-02-09, 12:48 PM
Advertising video based content, where you make money (or video rank, which leads to views and money) based off views, is similar to commercial content. The person sharing it has incentive to force people to consume it in a fashion that earns them video views instead of a way that is pleasant to consume.
When asked for "hey, can you describe it briefly, so I don't have to watch a 30 minute video", the response is "no, go watch". I find this (quite predictable through many content creators) rude, and the experience (of being told that asking information in any context that doesn't get video views is unacceptable) sucks. The person is acting as a salesperson for their product. It is a lot like commercial content that way, which this board has rules limiting to one thread above for good reasons.
On a forum where people are communicating through text, saying "nope, I am using this to promote a video, if you don't watch my video and get me views, go away, this isn't for you" when I open what looks like an interesting post (Hey, a Scarlet Witch build) makes me sad. It adds noise to the forum.
Or, in short, "video only content sucks".
Another way to say “I am offended that someone is trying to earn money on content that I might be interested in, so I’ll make a stink about nothing and pretend it’s a principle…”
Advertising video based content, where you make money (or video rank, which leads to views and money) based off views, is similar to commercial content. The person sharing it has incentive to force people to consume it in a fashion that earns them video views instead of a way that is pleasant to consume.
When asked for "hey, can you describe it briefly, so I don't have to watch a 30 minute video", the response is "no, go watch". I find this (quite predictable through many content creators) rude, and the experience (of being told that asking information in any context that doesn't get video views is unacceptable) sucks. The person is acting as a salesperson for their product. It is a lot like commercial content that way, which this board has rules limiting to one thread above for good reasons.
On a forum where people are communicating through text, saying "nope, I am using this to promote a video, if you don't watch my video and get me views, go away, this isn't for you" when I open what looks like an interesting post (Hey, a Scarlet Witch build) makes me sad. It adds noise to the forum.
Or, in short, "video only content sucks".
I make negative dollars making this content (i spend money and make zero). Did someone ask me for the specific build, and I missed it? I was asked if I provided ADDITIONAL content along with the video that already takes 50-100 hours to produce PER VIDEO, and I said I don't currently do the additional work, but will consider how I want to proceed when the time comes for me to make that decision.
Watching the video and seeing how the visuals of the powers and abilities matches to the D&D equivalent is literally 75% of what makes these type of builds interesting. If that's not the case for you, then have a good day!
Thanks for your feedback, though. I do actually appreciate it.
You compare that to a D4 or TM guide, they often multiclass or dip, but you still know right away what the majority of their build consists of without having to wade through the video or check multiple timestamps first.
Is this actually true for D4? I feel like I never know what his build is going to be, although he's been a little less coy about it lately. I do see your points, and it's an interesting balance I'll have to manage to find.
Psyren
2022-02-09, 04:54 PM
Is this actually true for D4? I feel like I never know what his build is going to be, although he's been a little less coy about it lately. I do see your points, and it's an interesting balance I'll have to manage to find.
I haven't watched every single one of his videos, but generally he titles them with things like "#22 Armorer" or "#32 Abjuration Wizard Tank." Even when the title is more flowery he tends to drop something in the description, such as "Arcane Spellbow #78" "(Description: This week we're attempting to build around the Arcane Archer, is it really as weak as people think?)"
This isn't just a good idea for you in terms of getting people to watch, it's a good idea for getting your videos found in the first place. Sure you're targeting the folks who might be interested in the question "how do I build Wanda Maximoff in 5e?" But there are a lot of other folks who might just be interested in, say, a Wild Magic Sorcerer build (again, I don't actually know the makeup of yours) who see your flashy thumbnail and get intrigued as a result.
This is also a good time to be making build guides in general. A lot of the older ones don't include content from Tasha's, Fizban's, Strixhaven etc and the established optimizers are unlikely to go back and delist/revise their earlier vids. Beyond the niche of replicating pop culture figures, you have a secondary potential niche in making at least somewhat optimized builds that combine older subclasses with newer feats, races and spells. (Yes I know most of your builds will end up being vhuman, but still.) Put another way, if I see two wild mage guides and one is from 2 years ago while the other is from 3 months, I know which one I'm watching first, even if it's more about realizing a specific concept than general optimization.
I’m actually going to experiment with that. I tried it with the thumbnail of my Luke build without great success but I need a larger sample before seeing if it can be successful adding a more detailed build description.
Watch my vid btw ;)
Another way to say “I am offended that someone is trying to earn money on content that I might be interested in, so I’ll make a stink about nothing and pretend it’s a principle…”
There are board rules about commercial content. There is a sticky post where it goes. I assume this does not qualify as commercial content.
I am ok with people making commercial content for RPGs. Knock yourself out? May you succeed at your effort! I don't like people running the forum putting ads (in moderation) on discussion forums: if the board wants to recoup costs by selling ad space, go for it.
But self promotion of commercial content is message board cancer, and has been since the advent of spam 50 odd years ago. It warps things away from discussing and sharing info, to leveraging eyeballs to capture value.
There are board rules about commercial content. There is a sticky post where it goes. I assume this does not qualify as commercial content.
I am ok with people making commercial content for RPGs. Knock yourself out? May you succeed at your effort! I don't like people running the forum putting ads (in moderation) on discussion forums: if the board wants to recoup costs by selling ad space, go for it.
But self promotion of commercial content is message board cancer, and has been since the advent of spam 50 odd years ago. It warps things away from discussing and sharing info, to leveraging eyeballs to capture value.
Builds are major part of this community and D&D communities overall. I think you’re overreacting just a touch. I feel like Reddit also agrees with you though, so you’re not in the minority - at least there. I obviously, and wholeheartedly disagree of course, as I’ve been trying to get Ludic to start a channel since forever - well before I decided to start my own.
Dr.Samurai
2022-02-10, 12:44 AM
When asked for "hey, can you describe it briefly, so I don't have to watch a 30 minute video", the response is "no, go watch". I find this (quite predictable through many content creators) rude, and the experience (of being told that asking information in any context that doesn't get video views is unacceptable) sucks.
It sounds like you set yourself up to get offended. What did you expect when you asked a content creator that spent many hours creating content, to summarize it so you wouldn't have to consume it? And then you imply that CMCC is actually the one being rude in this scenario. It's pretty remarkable.
For what it's worth, I find D4 to be obnoxiously long. And even apart from going over an hour a lot of times, his videos don't even get to the build for like... ten minutes. I get the sense that Colby likes to be in front of the camera and listen to himself speak. So... D4 is not really for me. Contrast to CMCC who has a preamble that's just under a minute and twenty seconds, and then we're getting into the build. Much better.
TreantMonk is also enjoyable, but also can be long-winded. I also feel like his builds are based on very rigid assumptions about the game, which can be very helpful for some people. But I feel like it limits the choices he will make. Not that serious though, I'll still watch a video of his if I'm interested in the concept.
But 20-30 minutes is much better for me, and it's not Tulok just reading very quickly from the list of levels, spells, and feats he took :smallamused:.
I didn't ask anything.
I just said video only content sucks, and got berated for it. So I explained why it sucks.
Psyren
2022-02-10, 08:43 AM
I’m actually going to experiment with that. I tried it with the thumbnail of my Luke build without great success but I need a larger sample before seeing if it can be successful adding a more detailed build description.
Watch my vid btw ;)
I still haven't gotten any kind of summary or even brief preview of what the build actually is or largely consists of. So I'm sort of making a point :smalltongue:
For what it's worth, I find D4 to be obnoxiously long. And even apart from going over an hour a lot of times, his videos don't even get to the build for like... ten minutes. I get the sense that Colby likes to be in front of the camera and listen to himself speak. So... D4 is not really for me. Contrast to CMCC who has a preamble that's just under a minute and twenty seconds, and then we're getting into the build. Much better.
TreantMonk is also enjoyable, but also can be long-winded. I also feel like his builds are based on very rigid assumptions about the game, which can be very helpful for some people. But I feel like it limits the choices he will make. Not that serious though, I'll still watch a video of his if I'm interested in the concept.
I agree Colby's intros can be long and I tend to skip them. And I don't like some of the build choices he makes. But at least I know what to expect from the build going in, like knowing that a given video is going to be about the Kensei Monk and therefore give me things to think about when building mine. And since he's not relying on visuals, there's a lot of verbal/deadpan humor that makes it feel podcast-y - something I can put on while driving or procrastinating plugging away at work.
Treantmonk's vids I value because he is the king of research. Every single Sage Advice or JC Tweet that might have the slightest bearing on his builds, he is able to cite in his videos - and when a reading is ambiguous or questionable he calls attention to it so I can make my own conclusions. He also has encyclopedic knowledge of the most obscure spells and feats in the game and interesting ways to use/combine them, which makes his caster builds even more valuable. And of course, he does visually show you (in DDB) many of the specific build choices he makes so you can hop around easily without getting lost.
This has been a lot more divisive than I hoped.
She’s primarily a wizard - and I directly address why I don’t go sorcerer and why I make each choice, in the video.
Wild magic sorcerer - what I see for her a lot - is not a good pick at all for reasons discussed in the vid.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.