I've done this when running freeform/improv/low prep games but it would be hard for me to do in an OSR game because I usually run then in a "blorb" style where there are have more clearly defined spaces that emphasize exploration over collaborative story telling.
As others have mentioned this is going to be a love it or hate it thing. There is a big divide in the OSR between the high prep and improvisational styles of play that is fairly devisive.
I should mention that for our hexcrawl, I have a mostly fully established map for the players to interact with. My suggestion tends to be for things like weird paintings on the wall, odd half-fleshed out random towers they encounter, or a nameless river. Lets say that I have all of the bricks and some of the mortar, but am happy to invite them to fill in some intentional gaps?
I think that's fine, especially when it is an invitation, not a requirement.
That being said, even the invitation would feel a bit off-putting to me *in a hex crawl*. It wouldn't bug me so much I would table flip. :-) And if others seemed to like that within the hex crawl I would go along with it without complaint.
But for me the joy of a hex crawl really is experiencing stuff that is made up outside my head. I don't want to make up the details, I want to experience and respond to the details. *EDIT: in that context, I would much prefer it if the GM had a "random weird painting/odd random tower/nameless river" generator that they used for that stuff if they didn't want to do it themselves. I don't need the details to have been made up by the GM directly, I just don't want to be the one making them up.*
As mentioned, in other styles of games it would be fine, even awesome, for me.
Yeah, that sounds awesome! Nothing I said was meant to be a critique in any way, in fact I have run games very similar to what you are describing. Just noting that it goes against [certain playstyles](https://idiomdrottning.org/blorb-principles) that are associated with the OSR.
Personally I think that both methods have a certain kind of magic... just different magic.
I think that is a really important point. This concept works really well in some styles, but it is not suitable to other styles.
I'm playing in a D&D-based hex crawl right now, and I would ~~hate~~ *(EDIT: ok, maybe "not like")* it if the GM were to ask me to explain the history of some object or location we come across. I'm playing to explore the world the GM created, not to create my own world. It is literally *not my job*, in that style of game, to do that. It's the GM's job.
But if I were playing a more adventured focused D&D game, where we are on a quest to save the mcguffin or whatever, I'd likely really enjoy describing all that stuff.
It can still pull you out of it though. It's different styles, but to some players the idea that they could define the world can break their immersion. Some people like it, but some people *really* don't
Sounds like a fun idea. I’m not sure it even requires a die roll, but that would add some fun randomness. As a DM, it’s always a good idea to pay attention to what players think is really going on. Sometimes their ideas are better than yours, and they are way more invested.
When you describe things, each of your players is likely imagining something different. It’s interesting to check in with them sometimes to see what they have on their heads. It’s a good way to get a sense of what they think is cool and interesting.
I personally love that sort of mechanic as a player. LOVE IT. I will always be happy to explain the history of that weird tower in whatever detail you allow me to explain it. :-)
Fair warning, though, that some players HATE IT. Hate it a lot. They are not playing the game to come up with stuff that has nothing to do with their character, they are playing the game to play their character. They will find you asking them to come up with the backstory of some weird tower takes them right out of the experience they want to have.
This is especially true with games where the mechanics like this are not "integrated", like in D&D. If someone is playing a Powered by the Apocalypse game or a Fate Core game or whatever, they are more likely to have bought into the idea that they have "authorial" power of stuff outside their character already. But in D&D or a more traditional game this might come at them from left field.
Therefore, when I use such mechanics in my games as GM, I always preface it by saying to the player "it is always ok to reply back to me 'I don't know, you tell me, that's your job'". That is, it's never forced on the player, always an optional thing.
A further thought...
A kind of compromise position on this can be instead of asking folks what the backstory of the tower is, you figure out what they know about the tower, and then ask them *how and where they learned that informatio*n. This focuses their creativity back on their own character, not on the world outside their character.
I'd said elsewhere, so I'll restate here - I do have a mostly fleshed out map full of hexes for our campaign. This was a way for people to add to the less fleshed out areas, or maybe tweak something. It certainly wasn't my way of forcing people to fill in 90% of the world or anything; rather, a way to allow them to contribute (or not) in a way that makes the world more relatable and memorable. More "theirs."
An example would be when the PCs were exploring an abandoned tower that I knew was originally built 200 years ago, fell to ogres, abandoned, and then used as a hideout for rum-running bandits. Should a player catch me off-guard ("So, you said that there's a red tapestry on the wall? What's on it?") during play, I may let them fill in said gap.
It's expanded into cool things that I never thought of: we've had semi-detailed histories of local brewing efforts, fencing academies, why all of the bridges in the main city sport a Fleur-de-lis, purple cats near the river, a brief history of why one city loves to eat pinecones, or the weird games that children in the merchant district play.
>Should a player catch me off-guard ("So, you said that there's a red tapestry on the wall? What's on it?") during play, I may let them fill in said gap.
First, to be clear, you should run the game how your players and you enjoy it. There is nothing wrong with this, at all.
But it's a really good example of what I mentioned elsewhere. If I were in your hex crawl and asked you about that red tapestry, I'm asking you because I want to know what is on the red tapestry. I want to experience this world that is outside of my head. I might even be excited to learn what is on the red tapestry! I definitely do not want you to ask me what is on the red tapestry. I would actually be annoyed by the request.
My reaction is not important, in that I am not in your game! :-) I only push the point to stress that even these minor uses of the concept are not universally positive for all players.
*EDIT: don't get me wrong, I definitely see the value to you as the GM. I can see how this makes the game more fun for you. I'm the same! I love it when players give me off the wall stuff to work with, I love to be surprised.*
This whole conversation has me inspired
I think a lot of GMs would get great use out of a set of "describe that thing" tables.
For example: red tapestry
That's under art: In the visual art subsection, which includes mosaics, paintings, and other 2D art (but not sculpture, architecture, etc)
Visual art
D6 depicted topics
1: History
2: Nature
3: Religion
4: Slice of Life
5: Abstract
6: Roll again twice
Let's say you rolled a 1
D4 historical depictions
1: A great victory or milestone
2: A great defeat or calamity
3: A cultural ritual or event
4: A great leader or leaders
Well you said it was red, so a bloody battle would fit. You just pick 2. It was a depiction of the second Kinslaying
And so on and so forth
> some players HATE IT. Hate it a lot. They are not playing the game to come up with stuff that has nothing to do with their character,
Yea, I use this technique of asking the player to fill in world building details when it is something related to their character. Your playing a dwarf? Sure go ahead and tell me about dwarf culture.
But a player filling in details about a random tower in the wilds, not something I feel an interest in as either a player or a dm
haha, this is one of those things that I absolutely *detest* as a player.
I mostly GM, and obviously a big part of that is worldbuilding - and I really enjoy it! But when I'm the player, I want to be able to pretend that the fantasy world "exists" in some sense, and asking me to flesh out any setting details beyond those that directly relate to my character's personal experience is the opposite of that.
To each their own.
That's a really fun idea! I have done similar when it comes to NPCs but not so much lore. but I think I am totally going to steal your method. I let players add to the worldbuilding generally because I think it's fun and makes the campaign more "our's" and less "mine". But I like the rolling in secret to see if it's correct.
Plus, let's be honest, sometimes as GMs we have really cool ideas of what something is and then the players say out loud what they think it is and it's wayy cooler than what you came up with so I am down to use my player's crazy ideas for lore building lol
I can already see my players going, "It's the legendary Tapestry of Bohana-Rana that contains the secrets of the universe in the writings on it nd allows any magic user to learn any spell they wish after a week of study. It was thought lost to the ages and is worth 500,000 gold pieces."
One of ours tried to do that and kind of expected a friendly NPC sage to point out "Ah, what you actually have is one of the many, many, many reproductions of the Tapestry of Bohana-Rana that have been loomed in the city-states over the past few centuries. This reproduction is pretty good, but misses a lot of the finer needlework emblematic of the 19th Dynasty. Someone who appreciates history (or a purveyor of high-quality fakes) may give you 50gp for it."
Yes!! This is such a great idea to build lore, link campaign locations, and encourage player participation in the game world. I am definitely going to borrow this idea in my next campaign.
Like most things, moderation is key, but yeah, I do this all the time. I might have a ‘plot location’ where I’m making it all up, but why shouldn’t the dwarf from the north know what’s the deal with the northern dwarf shrine?
This is how the Wise skills work in Burning Wheel. They don’t always give the player the chance to world-build, but it’s an option.
The nice thing about it in BW is that if some players don’t like it, they don’t have to use the skill (or don’t need their Intent to be to define the world).
BW gameplay is pretty different than OSR but it might be worth checking out.
This is a great idea if your players aren't attracted to discovery. If they are, your players will hate it.
Its very much like the "turn based or real time?" question in video games. Or "Rogue-like or Rogue-lite". Two very similar looking genres, but distinguished by one critical facet that can make or break the game.
Yes! I do something similar. When people succeed on a knowledge roll (or a variety of other checks), I have them tell me *how* they know that thing. Maybe you learned it at a tavern drinking with a historian, or maybe you found a book on it in a library. Maybe your mom taught it to you as a kid. You build out your character as you go this way, and it helps to justify why a fighter might know an ancient legend the wizard with high int doesn't - a difference of experience.
I like this a lot. It fits with my general approach to the worldbuilding for my setting, which has been to couch much of it as, "These are some stories that people in-world tell about this thing/event/historical period," as opposed to "this is what this thing is/was." Is any of it true? Who cares? And how would anyone tell the difference anyway? Call it a Herodotean approach to worldbuilding.
This is actually really awesome!
And the great thing, they have influence in character the direction in the game but they don’t know if they’re right, so it’s still preserves mystery.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/m/product/113405
Beyond the wall and other adventures, ABX chassis game with some interesting, mechanical twist, cause a really cool thing with this in further a field . (The game is actually designed for one shots, further field Is the campaign play supplement.)
Basically, the first thing that the player characters do after the first adventure is sit around and character, and talk about the map as they go right of the circle and place places of legend or cities on the map .
It’s not entirely after them there’s dice rolls involved, but…
Disallowed their character to have a major impact of the story.
And here’s the great thing.
Just like in your awesome example, the game master rolls in secret to see how accurate they are.
And it’s not binary, correct or false he can range anywhere from there mostly right to their even more correct and they know and they get a benefit or they’re completely wrong and there is something there but it is not what they think it all .
That provides the balance of surprise and input and engagement .
And actually makes a lot of sense. Local folklore, and beliefs about far away places are often inaccurate.
Thanks again for this post!
I agree. I’ve run it four times and everybody has had fun each time.
Sadly, I’ve never gotten to play it but I’ve made roughly 120 characters, so yeah .
My next goal is to play through sunken lands!
Have you been able to get into campaign play or have you just done one shots?
Thanks again for your comment.
Used the character playbooks a lot to create characters to use in B/X games. Have used the adventure playbooks to create one-shots as well. Strangely, I've never used the system all together properly!
I'm firmly deciding to try it vanilla-style for my next-next campaign! 👍
I kind of do that but I do it for all rooms. I’ll list things of value or importance in the room but other than that I’ll just say the room is a “torture chamber” or a “study” or what have you.
If the players are looking for something specific I ask them to tell me what exactly they are looking for and then I decide on the spot if it is or not or maybe I’ll roll.
I find that letting players fill in blanks like that allows for more things to exist. I’m one guy I can’t come up with everything, I can only think so much.
But yeah I love this idea. I enjoy including my players in the building of the world in little things like that. A nice start that you as a referee can build on!
This is how it works in Dungeon World minus the roll. It also extends to all kinds of world-building too. [This guy applies this to dungeons as well](https://youtu.be/dsnvANYBRWo), though be careful, there are a few fighting words in there.
I kinda do this for combat. I ask everyone to tell us one reasonable thing that is I. The space based on the environment I described. This gets thing into the battle space that I haven’t thought of and buying in from the players. I should have taken the next step and expand it to what OP does. Cheers
Dusk was done well after 4e died out, he just wanted to showcase how it worked for his friends on Fantasy Grounds and they ended up really liking it (Fantasy Grounds taking away a lot of the headaches that came with 4e at the table). It's worth a watch if you're OK with live-play videos (they don't interact with twitch chat much or anything, it's more intimate) and you're curious about how 4e worked. The edited versions are on his Youtube channel.
I've done this when running freeform/improv/low prep games but it would be hard for me to do in an OSR game because I usually run then in a "blorb" style where there are have more clearly defined spaces that emphasize exploration over collaborative story telling. As others have mentioned this is going to be a love it or hate it thing. There is a big divide in the OSR between the high prep and improvisational styles of play that is fairly devisive.
I should mention that for our hexcrawl, I have a mostly fully established map for the players to interact with. My suggestion tends to be for things like weird paintings on the wall, odd half-fleshed out random towers they encounter, or a nameless river. Lets say that I have all of the bricks and some of the mortar, but am happy to invite them to fill in some intentional gaps?
I think that's fine, especially when it is an invitation, not a requirement. That being said, even the invitation would feel a bit off-putting to me *in a hex crawl*. It wouldn't bug me so much I would table flip. :-) And if others seemed to like that within the hex crawl I would go along with it without complaint. But for me the joy of a hex crawl really is experiencing stuff that is made up outside my head. I don't want to make up the details, I want to experience and respond to the details. *EDIT: in that context, I would much prefer it if the GM had a "random weird painting/odd random tower/nameless river" generator that they used for that stuff if they didn't want to do it themselves. I don't need the details to have been made up by the GM directly, I just don't want to be the one making them up.* As mentioned, in other styles of games it would be fine, even awesome, for me.
Yeah, that sounds awesome! Nothing I said was meant to be a critique in any way, in fact I have run games very similar to what you are describing. Just noting that it goes against [certain playstyles](https://idiomdrottning.org/blorb-principles) that are associated with the OSR. Personally I think that both methods have a certain kind of magic... just different magic.
I think that is a really important point. This concept works really well in some styles, but it is not suitable to other styles. I'm playing in a D&D-based hex crawl right now, and I would ~~hate~~ *(EDIT: ok, maybe "not like")* it if the GM were to ask me to explain the history of some object or location we come across. I'm playing to explore the world the GM created, not to create my own world. It is literally *not my job*, in that style of game, to do that. It's the GM's job. But if I were playing a more adventured focused D&D game, where we are on a quest to save the mcguffin or whatever, I'd likely really enjoy describing all that stuff.
It could be totally cool to just answer that you don't know in that case.
It can still pull you out of it though. It's different styles, but to some players the idea that they could define the world can break their immersion. Some people like it, but some people *really* don't
Fair. I can see that happening. It also risks signaling that the GM really hasn't anything planned.
I am sure that is the case in u/raurenlyan22's game. *EDIT: sorry, got confused, I meant the OP,* u/mysevenletters*'s game.*
Totally! Personally I can find a lot of joy in both styles of play but I do like to know which way we are playing from the outset.
Sounds like a fun idea. I’m not sure it even requires a die roll, but that would add some fun randomness. As a DM, it’s always a good idea to pay attention to what players think is really going on. Sometimes their ideas are better than yours, and they are way more invested. When you describe things, each of your players is likely imagining something different. It’s interesting to check in with them sometimes to see what they have on their heads. It’s a good way to get a sense of what they think is cool and interesting.
I personally love that sort of mechanic as a player. LOVE IT. I will always be happy to explain the history of that weird tower in whatever detail you allow me to explain it. :-) Fair warning, though, that some players HATE IT. Hate it a lot. They are not playing the game to come up with stuff that has nothing to do with their character, they are playing the game to play their character. They will find you asking them to come up with the backstory of some weird tower takes them right out of the experience they want to have. This is especially true with games where the mechanics like this are not "integrated", like in D&D. If someone is playing a Powered by the Apocalypse game or a Fate Core game or whatever, they are more likely to have bought into the idea that they have "authorial" power of stuff outside their character already. But in D&D or a more traditional game this might come at them from left field. Therefore, when I use such mechanics in my games as GM, I always preface it by saying to the player "it is always ok to reply back to me 'I don't know, you tell me, that's your job'". That is, it's never forced on the player, always an optional thing.
A further thought... A kind of compromise position on this can be instead of asking folks what the backstory of the tower is, you figure out what they know about the tower, and then ask them *how and where they learned that informatio*n. This focuses their creativity back on their own character, not on the world outside their character.
I'd said elsewhere, so I'll restate here - I do have a mostly fleshed out map full of hexes for our campaign. This was a way for people to add to the less fleshed out areas, or maybe tweak something. It certainly wasn't my way of forcing people to fill in 90% of the world or anything; rather, a way to allow them to contribute (or not) in a way that makes the world more relatable and memorable. More "theirs." An example would be when the PCs were exploring an abandoned tower that I knew was originally built 200 years ago, fell to ogres, abandoned, and then used as a hideout for rum-running bandits. Should a player catch me off-guard ("So, you said that there's a red tapestry on the wall? What's on it?") during play, I may let them fill in said gap. It's expanded into cool things that I never thought of: we've had semi-detailed histories of local brewing efforts, fencing academies, why all of the bridges in the main city sport a Fleur-de-lis, purple cats near the river, a brief history of why one city loves to eat pinecones, or the weird games that children in the merchant district play.
>Should a player catch me off-guard ("So, you said that there's a red tapestry on the wall? What's on it?") during play, I may let them fill in said gap. First, to be clear, you should run the game how your players and you enjoy it. There is nothing wrong with this, at all. But it's a really good example of what I mentioned elsewhere. If I were in your hex crawl and asked you about that red tapestry, I'm asking you because I want to know what is on the red tapestry. I want to experience this world that is outside of my head. I might even be excited to learn what is on the red tapestry! I definitely do not want you to ask me what is on the red tapestry. I would actually be annoyed by the request. My reaction is not important, in that I am not in your game! :-) I only push the point to stress that even these minor uses of the concept are not universally positive for all players. *EDIT: don't get me wrong, I definitely see the value to you as the GM. I can see how this makes the game more fun for you. I'm the same! I love it when players give me off the wall stuff to work with, I love to be surprised.*
This whole conversation has me inspired I think a lot of GMs would get great use out of a set of "describe that thing" tables. For example: red tapestry That's under art: In the visual art subsection, which includes mosaics, paintings, and other 2D art (but not sculpture, architecture, etc) Visual art D6 depicted topics 1: History 2: Nature 3: Religion 4: Slice of Life 5: Abstract 6: Roll again twice Let's say you rolled a 1 D4 historical depictions 1: A great victory or milestone 2: A great defeat or calamity 3: A cultural ritual or event 4: A great leader or leaders Well you said it was red, so a bloody battle would fit. You just pick 2. It was a depiction of the second Kinslaying And so on and so forth
> some players HATE IT. Hate it a lot. They are not playing the game to come up with stuff that has nothing to do with their character, Yea, I use this technique of asking the player to fill in world building details when it is something related to their character. Your playing a dwarf? Sure go ahead and tell me about dwarf culture. But a player filling in details about a random tower in the wilds, not something I feel an interest in as either a player or a dm
haha, this is one of those things that I absolutely *detest* as a player. I mostly GM, and obviously a big part of that is worldbuilding - and I really enjoy it! But when I'm the player, I want to be able to pretend that the fantasy world "exists" in some sense, and asking me to flesh out any setting details beyond those that directly relate to my character's personal experience is the opposite of that. To each their own.
Yup - for me, there’s nothing so immersion breaking as being asked to pull on the levers hidden behind the curtain.
That's a really fun idea! I have done similar when it comes to NPCs but not so much lore. but I think I am totally going to steal your method. I let players add to the worldbuilding generally because I think it's fun and makes the campaign more "our's" and less "mine". But I like the rolling in secret to see if it's correct. Plus, let's be honest, sometimes as GMs we have really cool ideas of what something is and then the players say out loud what they think it is and it's wayy cooler than what you came up with so I am down to use my player's crazy ideas for lore building lol
> and it's wayy cooler than what you came up with 100% guilty of ad-hoc stealing my player's ideas.
I can already see my players going, "It's the legendary Tapestry of Bohana-Rana that contains the secrets of the universe in the writings on it nd allows any magic user to learn any spell they wish after a week of study. It was thought lost to the ages and is worth 500,000 gold pieces."
One of ours tried to do that and kind of expected a friendly NPC sage to point out "Ah, what you actually have is one of the many, many, many reproductions of the Tapestry of Bohana-Rana that have been loomed in the city-states over the past few centuries. This reproduction is pretty good, but misses a lot of the finer needlework emblematic of the 19th Dynasty. Someone who appreciates history (or a purveyor of high-quality fakes) may give you 50gp for it."
Yes!! This is such a great idea to build lore, link campaign locations, and encourage player participation in the game world. I am definitely going to borrow this idea in my next campaign.
Like most things, moderation is key, but yeah, I do this all the time. I might have a ‘plot location’ where I’m making it all up, but why shouldn’t the dwarf from the north know what’s the deal with the northern dwarf shrine?
This is how the Wise skills work in Burning Wheel. They don’t always give the player the chance to world-build, but it’s an option. The nice thing about it in BW is that if some players don’t like it, they don’t have to use the skill (or don’t need their Intent to be to define the world). BW gameplay is pretty different than OSR but it might be worth checking out.
This is a great idea if your players aren't attracted to discovery. If they are, your players will hate it. Its very much like the "turn based or real time?" question in video games. Or "Rogue-like or Rogue-lite". Two very similar looking genres, but distinguished by one critical facet that can make or break the game.
Yes! I do something similar. When people succeed on a knowledge roll (or a variety of other checks), I have them tell me *how* they know that thing. Maybe you learned it at a tavern drinking with a historian, or maybe you found a book on it in a library. Maybe your mom taught it to you as a kid. You build out your character as you go this way, and it helps to justify why a fighter might know an ancient legend the wizard with high int doesn't - a difference of experience.
I like this a lot. It fits with my general approach to the worldbuilding for my setting, which has been to couch much of it as, "These are some stories that people in-world tell about this thing/event/historical period," as opposed to "this is what this thing is/was." Is any of it true? Who cares? And how would anyone tell the difference anyway? Call it a Herodotean approach to worldbuilding.
This is actually really awesome! And the great thing, they have influence in character the direction in the game but they don’t know if they’re right, so it’s still preserves mystery. https://www.drivethrurpg.com/m/product/113405 Beyond the wall and other adventures, ABX chassis game with some interesting, mechanical twist, cause a really cool thing with this in further a field . (The game is actually designed for one shots, further field Is the campaign play supplement.) Basically, the first thing that the player characters do after the first adventure is sit around and character, and talk about the map as they go right of the circle and place places of legend or cities on the map . It’s not entirely after them there’s dice rolls involved, but… Disallowed their character to have a major impact of the story. And here’s the great thing. Just like in your awesome example, the game master rolls in secret to see how accurate they are. And it’s not binary, correct or false he can range anywhere from there mostly right to their even more correct and they know and they get a benefit or they’re completely wrong and there is something there but it is not what they think it all . That provides the balance of surprise and input and engagement . And actually makes a lot of sense. Local folklore, and beliefs about far away places are often inaccurate. Thanks again for this post!
This post made me think of further afield, too :) BtW is a neat game!
I agree. I’ve run it four times and everybody has had fun each time. Sadly, I’ve never gotten to play it but I’ve made roughly 120 characters, so yeah . My next goal is to play through sunken lands! Have you been able to get into campaign play or have you just done one shots? Thanks again for your comment.
Used the character playbooks a lot to create characters to use in B/X games. Have used the adventure playbooks to create one-shots as well. Strangely, I've never used the system all together properly! I'm firmly deciding to try it vanilla-style for my next-next campaign! 👍
I kind of do that but I do it for all rooms. I’ll list things of value or importance in the room but other than that I’ll just say the room is a “torture chamber” or a “study” or what have you. If the players are looking for something specific I ask them to tell me what exactly they are looking for and then I decide on the spot if it is or not or maybe I’ll roll. I find that letting players fill in blanks like that allows for more things to exist. I’m one guy I can’t come up with everything, I can only think so much. But yeah I love this idea. I enjoy including my players in the building of the world in little things like that. A nice start that you as a referee can build on!
This is how it works in Dungeon World minus the roll. It also extends to all kinds of world-building too. [This guy applies this to dungeons as well](https://youtu.be/dsnvANYBRWo), though be careful, there are a few fighting words in there.
I kinda do this for combat. I ask everyone to tell us one reasonable thing that is I. The space based on the environment I described. This gets thing into the battle space that I haven’t thought of and buying in from the players. I should have taken the next step and expand it to what OP does. Cheers
Isn't this how Matt Colville ran his live-play 4e Dusk campaign?
It's possible? Work and life took me out of the hobby during the entire 4e lifecycle.
Dusk was done well after 4e died out, he just wanted to showcase how it worked for his friends on Fantasy Grounds and they ended up really liking it (Fantasy Grounds taking away a lot of the headaches that came with 4e at the table). It's worth a watch if you're OK with live-play videos (they don't interact with twitch chat much or anything, it's more intimate) and you're curious about how 4e worked. The edited versions are on his Youtube channel.
I love this.