For the rule of cool situations just say "remember, everything you can do, the monsters can do too" and the laws of physics will suddenly become sacred.
or do it old school, let them roll and let them fail and look like a clown due to their low stats and equipment. the whole everyone gets a trophy mentality is really annoying imo especially with how all of the newer game rules gives so much leeway to do things easily, allowing homebrews or special exception shouldn't be a thing. if the players act stupid they should be punish for it and if the rules allows players to min max cheese they should also be allowed to do it. exceptions could be allowed for dramatic finishes but other then that no.
No, they'll nod their heads vigorously that it should definitely apply to the monsters also, so you let them do the thing. And then when a monster does the same thing, *then* the laws of physics are sacred....
Had someone who didn't heed that warning once. Next session the DM put us against a lone Lich straight outta Dragon Ball Z, floating around and kicking us in the face at stupid speeds while tossing energy orbs and beams everywhere. His phylactery was in the room, but fucker just tossed us around like dolls. Half of us were on our death saving throws when someone finally got it.
Can't speak for other games, but rule of cool in mine is usually a one off thing, and it's always a case of "I'll allow it if you roll high." Enemies can't do the same because it makes their power level too unpredictable: the players will assume that if one Lich can use an artifact to throw a dozen fireballs, then all enemy casters in general might do the same, and then the game basically grinds to a halt as they start planning for every easy fight with a Wizard like it was D-Day. It's better to make it clear that "cool" actions that are a bit too "out there" will have a price: in one case, I allowed something stupid because the group loved it, but wrote a story out of it by saying his god intervened, and now wants the favor returned lest the player be punished. As a result, most players control themselves, and the few that don't usually aren't social enough to last as part of a group.
We've banished hardcore physics discussions at our table, because one of our party members is so strictly "um actually" about physics that things hard coded into the games wouldn't be allowed... like giants and dragons lol We ended up getting in a heated debate about Enlarge :P
Had a guy like that who didn't do that with his money and would ask that "How much money do I have?" in the middle of combat. pissing off the dm. He justified this by saying he was transferring is character from one digital sheet to another like from dndbeyond to reroll... in the middle of the game.
I give out Hero point to players that catch things in my Pathfinder2e campaign, regardless of who is the target/subject. Because it's a new system, we all need to chip in to get "good practices" in so that we don't learn to play with a ruleset where we just misunderstood something. Say you forget when you role to see if you can get rid of persistent effects. If you get it wrong one way or another you can essentially break the Alchemist class either way into mechanically unplayable or into superpowered.
Or voluntarily choose to embrace something to their character's disadvantage or possibly even mortal peril, because it fits the setting/theme/story/plot better than the more advantageous option.
yep... I remember the time I literally killed my character by reminding my gm that the enemy had advantage... about 20 minutes into the first session Xd
You say that but I had a Bard who tried to kill my character in the middle of a module that don't allow for *short* rests and they explicitly refused when the DM tried to bend the rules in their favor Reasoning: my character didn't worhip Bahamut. A god that the Bard hated vehemently.
I mean, not really? Congress is more about 'does this serve the big corporations paying me to vote in their interest' then 'does this balance what people in my state need against what people in another state need'.
@@MarkoArillius Congress doesn't exclusively serve big corps. They just serve anyone who has the money to bribe them, whether that individual or group is a corporation or not.
To quote tv tropes on the rules lawyer: “Obnoxious Rules Lawyers manipulate the rules to give themselves advantages, Dumb Rules Lawyers will always insist on following the rules even when it's clear it won't work, while Helpful Rules Lawyers play by the rules even if that puts them at a disadvantage, and will even try to use their knowledge to help out someone else.”
It is not dumb to always follow the rules. Before we sit down at the table, we have entered an agreement. This are the rules (D&D5, pathfinder 1 or 2, deadlands, etc) and we will follow them. Like he says in his video, do not insult or dismiss people trying their best, to be fair and accurate. Rules & dice rolls ARE! When we sit down at the table we accept that. No matter what. Even if it means tpk. After the game, if something did not work, made people uncomfortable, created a problem, etc then you look for solutions or patches. But please, do not dismiss or insult those who make an effort to be as fair as posible.
@@Voroeg I think the situations where following the rules doesn't work is less when the group is about to tpk and more when you hit upon an edge case of the system where some rules interact in a weird way that breaks immersion. Like, I dunno, if you use Fireball underwater and instead of creating a steam explosion or fizzling out it just... keeps going, and everyone agrees that it's *really weird* for fireballs to work underwater. (I dunno if that's an actual situation you might encounter, but it's an example of rule boundary fuzziness) The point is that there are cases where the rules lead to unintended situations, and in those cases it's reasonable to decide to go the way that's more immersive and coherent, and if you stick to the rules 100% of the time you'll be the one arguing that the rules never *say* that water extinguishes fire.
"You're the DM! You're meant to be keeping track of my HP and Spell slots as well!" Me, Looking down at the various HP trackers of multiple battle encounters, NPC notes, Dungeon notes, maps and encounter tables, monster statlines, and campaign notes, then back up to the cheeky fucker who thinks its also my job to keep his stuff in check *NOW LISTEN HERE, YOU LITTLE SHIT*
Honestly, I acidentily did this on my 1st character; but only for spell-slots, not H.P. however, it was only beacuse I didn't even understand what "spell-slots" were. I was used to using the term mana, or magic-points. Thus I thoguht my "spell-slots" were my "spells-known," and that I had infinite mana. I know better now thoguh. Spell slots are mana. Spells known is what I have in my spellbook. Spells prepaired, are what I can actually cast on command, provided I have the mana and spell components.
@@agsilverradio2225 If someone forgets or just is new. I'm always happy to help out, but if they comes out with "it's your job to do it!" they get no sympathy from this forever DM.
Ive been a DM for about 20 years, and my rule is what I call Macgyver: if you can reasonably argue something being plausible, and the table agrees, I'll allow it, and try to figure out the necessary buffs/debuffs/rolls required to make it happen. So, throwing a sword like a javelin. ...weird, but *technically* possible with a longsword, if you think about how theyre weighted. Okay, but you'll have a short range and damn high DC to actually make it work. And with something like Misty Step? Havent had that problem but Id be willing to at least hear the argument that "well I have seen the area moments before, it's only a few feet away, what about calling it a leap of faith?" Or people counter-arguing that if they do that there should be a chance for it to go horribly wrong, like teleport fused into the floor. Not to sound old but 'back in my day' DM was judge jury and executioner, period. DM was god. Willing to listen, but at the end of the day if DM says shut up you're wrong: then shut up you're wrong. *shrug* just my 2 cents on all this. Glad I havent had players as annoying as some of yours sound.
With the misty step thing i would probably say they decide how far they travel and i roll an 8 sided dice to see which direction they go in. Not ideal for the player but might be better then where they are now
See, this is how I believe dms should act with rules. Follow the rules when you can, if it’s not in the rules, provide a good enough argument and it’s legal. And if something in the rules is really stupid or not situationally appropriate, provide a *really* good argument and an exception might be made.
I would ask if I could roll to see on which tile I ended up on. Even if it hurts me, I have a chance at getting into a better position. (Blindly Teleporting a random direction and a random distance within 30 feet.) (or if your character knows they are in a 25 foot room then 15 foot teleport maybe.)
@@VoidplayLP Well, that's just hypocritical of you. Wanting to use an ability, that explicitly states that you must be able to see the target, as a means to escape a situation where you literally cannot see, and then expecting rules to be followed as written, when it is disadvantageous for you... See how you just made yourself a problem player, with that statement concerning the use of misty step? You fell right into one of Ben's sentences "Rules are for me to inflict upon others." Or "Rules are for everyone but me." You have to be careful making such a statement.
Why I think a DM should make it very clear that all homebrew rules/items are subject to change, good or bad, and they should have a discussion between sessions with the player if they think there needs to be some rebalancing.
I agree. I've accidentally given players way too powerful of items or abilities before. My way to fix that was to add abilities or increase stats on the things they fought, but that turned into so much work as a DM because I eventually had to homebrew practically everything they fought. Now I put much more thought into what few homebrew things I incorporate.
My DM just had a general rule of: Once the turn has ended, that's canon. Many a time us players have forgotten about some debilitation we had. Equally as many times, the DM has forgotten an entire mechanic of the boss he designed. We always just shrug it off and carry on cuz that's just easier to do.
Yeah my DM is like that too. If we forget a roll or buff, that’s on us. Equally if he forgets a mechanic or debuff, that’s on him. But once the turn has ended, that’s the canon. Funny situations though with it. We had a Druid try to deliver a finishing blow, but rolled out of turn order. It was actually my turn. So DM had me deliver the finishing blow as a monk. THEN he had the Druid cast the lightning spell that ended up hitting me. DM ruled that since the player had called for it during my turn, it counted as cannon and was part of my turn, but only after I had taken my action.
By contrast I was trying to play warhammer with a rules lawyer. He made turns.... TURNS NOT GAMES last 5 hours at a time and when I couldn't recreate the entire game and all dice rolls from memory he demanded to reset everything except what he killed. He's still confused as to why I am not returning his texts.
One of my rules as a DM is, "If a mistake is made before the end of someones turn, the dice are re rolled. Once the turn has ended, neither the player, or me, can go back to fix it." Overall, it balances out.
One Crazy Pig great rule, I’m gonna start using that. What I would do if there was an argument I would just say “role for it, if you get 123 we keep this rule if you get 456 we don’t” both ways work
@@violet3430 I prefer "GM is god" rule (also what One Crazy Pig said). GM is arbiter. He is always right. I once have player who was arguing with my over the bullshit. He shut up after he noticed that all monsters target only him. Because "why they couldn't do that"?
I've just had things retroactively heal or take extra damage without really telling the players. Since we're a group of one power gamer, three minmaxers ( four rules lawyers) and a spouse of one of the group, we occasionally have a discussion on the rules to make sure everyone is on board with whatever our current DM will be ruling by, whomever that is.
like the video says; it's bad when you have to make the decision on everything. the established rules are supposed to be guideline for allowing players to know how things work. if something odd happens, sure: rule 0 that.
@@Maibak3175 The DM still decides which rules go and which don't. If the player really dislikes the rules, they can tell the DM and other players to be on their way and find somewhere else to play.
Or when a DM keeps screwing up the game, they can be relieved by the group. The DM is just one player with a specific role and can be replaced. I have seen this happen and even voted them out for steering away from the game rules, fudging dice rolls, and creating BS monsters to name a few.
Chase Gamer The rules lawyers didn’t have enough money to pay for their education! They’re now in crippling student loan debt. Just send a collector. Easy.
I'm studying in order to become a teacher and what's striking me now is the uncanny similarities between teaching a class and DMing. You have to prepare a lot for a session. Keep everyone on board and entertained. You've got all the answers (or most of them - let's keep it real. Who got ALL the answers?). And sometimes there is even homework the players have to do.
@@lennar2328 that's sort of why I think teachers should look into game design. sure, they can just say "screw it" and blame on their students for not engaging in class and performing poorly on exams but sometimes trying to help students to pay attention and testing them in a way that actually checks if they learned what you were trying to teach and not just exposing the subject and testing if they can answer X many questions on difficulty Y in Z minutes can be interesting
That can be the same issue when creating a house rule to "solve" an issue. You make a house rule to change something and find out it that it creates a few new problems. Then you try to "fix" those problems and end up creating more issues. Can be a vicious cycle if one is not careful.
So I think I get what the "I love dice rolling for stats but hate that it's random" guy means. And it's more that it's a bit *too* random. You might like the idea of a character that's strong in some things, and not in others, and to not know what those things will be before hand. But the problem is that rolling dice is truly random and not a normalized randomization of the average point buy. You can end up with a really dull "10,10,10,11,12,10" or something that just makes a really "bad" character with no strengths like a n"11,4,6,6,9,8". Not that those are necessarily bad to all players, and some might find a Normal McAverageson master of average stats or a useless-at-everything character to be an entertaining idea, but many would find that difficult to play or enjoy. I think some people appreciate the *idea* of randomizing their character just not being prepared to live with the full breadth of possibility that entails. Which really is kind of where 4d6 *drop** lowest came from in the first place. Problem with that is that you all too often don't get any weaknesses. Whenever I use that system as a player I've tended to roll high in most stats, and then ask the DM if I can self-nerf one stat to be like a 6 for the fun of it. *edited reroll to drop it was just a typo.
I mean depends how the rolling was done. I've always had (home) rules stating to Roll 4d6, subtract lowest value, then place stat where you want it. This allowed players to make the class they wanted, even if it's not as 'powerful' as they wanted. 4d6 reroll 1's is another option with similar although sometimes drastically different results. (depending if they drop lowest, or count all 4 dice allowing 24 in a stat, something so powerful that it can break the game, at least early on)
I've given up on rolling because I realised i was only rolling for that really high and really low score that point buy doesn't allow. So my new standard array is 8, 10, 11, 14, 16 so everyone gets a skill they're pretty bad at and one that they're great at no matter what.
@@xXKisskerXx Yeah but all you can really do is make numbers trend one way or another. 4d6 subtract lowest trends the numbers upwards which is good as you say to make the characters people want, but ive rolled ultra strong characters out of this and sometimes characters with no weaknesses at all and have found myself having to ask the DM if i can swap one of my 15s for a 7 or something just for some flavour. I get why it seems contradictory but I get the viewpoint. "True" randomness has become rarer and rarer all across game design because it's rarely consistently satisfying because it's... random. It's not consistently anything, lol. What people often want out of randomization is *variety* and *surprise* rather than actual randomization which can easily lead to neither of those things as often as it leads to both.
@Naren Gurrier-Jones In my current campaign, I had each player roll 4d6-drop1 for each stat in order, and then they got to decide among themselves who got which roll for each stat.
Lawful Good Rules Lawyer: Ensures that the group is playing by the rules, even when it goes against their favor. Lawful Evil Rules Lawyer: Ensures that the rules always benefit them and is otherwise perfectly happy to forget them when they don't. Chaotic Evil Rules Lawyer: Only brings up obscure rules or interactions when it's super inconvenient and severely interrupts the flow of gameplay. Chaotic Good Rules Lawyer: "There's only one rule - if you're having fun, rock on."
Also the True Neutral Lawyer from the plane of automatons that makes sure the dm's word is law and that all rules are followed, or at least acknowledged, at all times no matter what.
@@dddmemaybe I have one of those True Neutral Lawyers. Him actually playing the game really helps me as DM so I don't have to spend so much time on rules, and more on plot. Thanks Gabe :)
Rules Lawyer is to me : "I will argue whatever rules we have, to support my claim, and only my claim." usually the people who roll dice, and pick it up after and have a habit of "bad math"
I think rolling for stats can lead to some interesting character concepts too. I was making a wizard and I ended up with an 8...So i decided to drop it into dex. Took the soldier background, and said that he had been a soldier, but in an attack a building he was in collapsed and crushed his leg. he was stuck there too long, so the clerics couldn't repair the damage... After that he decided to pursue magic. Boom. A wizard character that will die instantly because he has like 8 AC, but interesting as hell :P
I prefer point buy, last time I rolled, my stats were around 5,7,4,9,11,8. I was given the option of re-rolling and got worse. Once rolled 2 3's and an 18. Most of the time I couldnt imagine the character becoming an adventurer due to how crippled he is.
Taken from my collection of House Rules: 23. Avatar the Last Rule Bender. Rule of Cool does exist, and your DM doesn’t want to constantly say no when you try something crazy. If a particularly important event or scene would be made way more satisfying with a rule-bending, you may do so, with your DM’s consent.. Pushing your abilities beyond their normally limits is very exhausting and dangerous, and requires taking levels of Exhaustion. Depending on the severity of the rule bending, your DM will inform you ahead of time if it will cost 1d4 points (Ex: Making a skill check you normally can’t because of proficiency restrictions, or getting a small modifier to the behavior of a cantrip or 1st level spell), 1d6 points (Ex: Making any skill check with advantage, or getting a substantial modifier to a higher level spell), or 2d4 points (Ex: Taking “Dying Actions”, Legendary Actions/Reactions, like blasting a villain with a 9th level spell after watching them murder your family and it was still the villains turn). You take the levels of exhaustion at the end of combat, or at the end of that scene. In any case, you may only use this feature once per play session.
What I particularly like about this is that, because exhaustion is so extreme. Players that use 'the rule of cool' to do more damage won't do so, because it's statistically a dumb thing to do that actually increases the risk of your character getting hurt.
I've gotten somewhat of a reputation in my group for being a rules purist. I routinely have to call out other players and tell them "hey, no, you can't do that". Most of it is because of the other players not being really that experienced, but I can see why it can be frustrating. We've got our Paladin who keeps forgetting that Divine Smite takes a spell slot, so after about seven rounds of combat I'm like "Um hey, how many spell slots you got left? Can you even cast Find Steed?" Or our rogue who thinks sneak attack is something you add to every attack, not just one attack. "No no, you've already used your sneak attack this round, you can't use it again." Or our fighter who can parry as a reaction. "You've already parried an attack, you can't take an opportunity attack because you parried." Recently some of the other players started telling me that I was kind of being a prick for doing so, because I never call myself out for messing up, so lately I've been saying things like "And since I already cast Zephyr Strike, I can't Hide as a bonus action, so I guess I'll just end my turn normally." They can be pretty chill sometimes though. Once we fought an armored bird creature as a bossfight. To keep it from flying, we paralyzed it with arrows and javelins dipped in potions, and then started going ham on it. Our GM forgot that paralyzed creatures take all melee hits as critical hits, and so when we figured this out we were like "oh crap, that thing should have been dead a long time ago." But I sorta just shrugged and said, "Well I guess it just had Adamantine armor on and we *just now* knocked it all off." And everyone was alright with that.
"you never call yourself out for messing up" if I know I'm making a mistake, I wouldn't call myself out for it because I wouldn't make the mistake I know is a mistake.
@@thekenyonsquad5672 That was the impression I got too. If OP knows the Fighter's rules, the Rogue's rules, and the Paladin's rules better than their players' then they probably know their own character's rules too. If I had to guess, they were mad OP was calling them out on being bad players and were grasping at straws to find something to throw back at them.
I'm very similar in the way I use rules. I don't expect other people to know all of the rules but I do expect them to follow them. People in my group used to think that I was just trying to nerf/ control them. That usually ends when they become my DM. Cause I'm the kind of person who, outside of the sessions, messages my DM about how my character's rules work. So that I know before the situation comes up.
@@valensfdbn Oh but you really do. Don't get me wrong, it's not about ratting out an other player. I think the problems stems from people viewing the hobby as a competitive sport instead of a collaborative improv session. Sure if you are pointing out a co-player's mistake because you want to see him/her suffer then that's a problem. But I would argue that most people who do it aren't doing it for selfish reason and that really makes all the difference (at least to me). It is (or at least should be) about facilitating the rules to a point where everyone gets it so the sessions run smoother. You can't do that unless you make people aware of their mistakes. I would expect any player or DM who caught me in a mistake to tell me.
@@Micras08 same, if it stops having to look back and go "shit we did combat _and_ skills wrong for 3 hours oops" then I'm like, yea imma grab da rulez to go on the next one.
We had a general Philosophy of "You live with your mistakes" That applied to everyone at the table DM or player. So there was an understanding that sometimes you might get an unnatural advantage and sometimes a disadvantage. I feel it help the group focus more on keeping track of stuff and letting each other know about rolls/buff/debuffs. It is IMO about finding the right group sometimes and slowly working your way through issues.
“Rules lawyers” has such a negative connotation because it’s usually someone arguing about how a rule should apply to them, and that they deserve an exception for one reason or another. It’s the same guy asking for advantage for one reason or another, usually the same guy who thinks he is playing a video game and is the type of video game player that will stand in a doorway and crouch to bug out enemies into not being able to hit them. People hate them because they constantly slow the game down or get mad because of rulings, and will constantly ask you to justify your decisions. They are not fun to play with because part of their fun is “being the best” while putting in the least effort possible.
I am a rules lawyer on occasion, and generally what that means to me is that occasionally the DM will make a rule or ruling that is contrary to what is said in the rulebook, AND doesn't make sense in a physics standpoint either. I'm all good with a DM arguing that i should die if i fall 100 ft with nothing slowing my descent, but I'm not ok with them telling me that I will be taking 4d6 damage from falling 10 ft down. I think puffin made a good point that rules lawyering generally is only a problem when somebody ignores a rule or is a stickler about a reasonable houserule to the normal set of rules.
At least in my experience its even more boring if the rules lawyer is the dm, I had a dm that created a lot of stupid homebrew rules and we couldnt argue with him because he made all the rules and also created new rules on the fly xD. Of course the players argue all the time because his rules were stupid, and he didnt like when our characters got hurt because we were 'ruining his story', he used to say that breath weapons didnt inflict half the damage on a failed save if the breath weapon was gas, just because I was a green dragonborn and he wanted to nerf my character, he just wanted to kill my character because I didnt want to get railroaded.
It doesnt necessarily mean that. My problem with random roles is that it doesnt feel good when some characters have a low role while others have a high role in the same game.
@@Berethgor I saw a stat generation system recently you might like. Roll 6 six sided dice in order. labeled A B C D E F; your stats are calculated as thus: 13+A-B, 13+B-C, 13+C-D, 13+D-E, 13+E-F, 13+F-A. this gives 8-18 average 13, similar to roll 4 six sided dice drop the lowest. If you want something closer to 3 six sided dice use a 11 instead of a 13 and use 6 eight sided dice instead of six sided dice for 4-18 average 11. the number added to the dice is your average stat value and dice size determine the level of variance. You can even roll this once and use the result as a stat array for all the players.
@@Berethgor That's why rolling for stats is bad and I've banned it from my games. I had considerable problems with one group where a couple players rolled a string of 18's and everyone else at the table rolled crap, it basically ruined the whole group for everyone except for the couple guys that got lucky and I'm never allowing that to happen again.
I actually had a reverse christmas thing happen to me recently but it has a happy ending. An out of state friend of mine wanted to start dming his own game and had asked our online group to roll up level 7 characters and that we can have either two uncommon or one rare magic item. I decided to try out the paladdin class and to make myself extra smity I took the Sword of light as my rare item of choice. My dm didn't realize that a lot of rare items are a bit to powerfull for characters at level seven. He had asked me if I would be willing to nerf my sword with the promise he would buff it up as the story unfolded. I thought about it for a few minutes and came up with a very creative nerf for the sword. I flavored that my sword is ancient and the power source has broken over time/got lost/ ect. To activate it I have to be channeling divinity and if I rolled a critical hit I have to make a Con Saving throw (dc10). If I fail the saving throw I take 1d6 necrotic damage as the sword is pulling more power from me than my channel divinity can provide. My dm liked it a lot and even gave me a long sword +1 to use when not channeling.
I like the flexibility of that. Powerful but with sensible limitations so you only use it when you really need it. Plus it's got excellent dramatic potential. "I sacrifice the last of my strength to strike down the main villain" sort of thing.
@@sockmonkey6666 Right? Also I chose Heroism paladin and one of my Channel divinity options is landing crits on 19-20. So the con save should come up a bit more often than usual.
"I like rolling for stats but hate that it's random" can be directly transliterate as "I like rolling for stats and getting super lucky rolls compared to everyone else. Otherwise it sucks"
Honestly, anyone who doesn't roll great on their random stat rolls is going to feel like trash compared to anyone who got better rolls. In fact, this was a real problem back in 2nd edition: you literally can't play certain classes without good rolls, due to prerequisites, and many of those prereqs were high scores. For that and many other reasons, it's just helpful to use Point Buy. It gives players more agency over their character's performance.
"Hey DM, could we try my buddy's 'All 18's' system?" I like a system that allows stat increases during the course of level progression, like 5e. It makes the lower rolls more palatable since you know you can nudge them back into range if they truly become a problem (which they usually won't, unless you dumped CON). Though in my 5e campaign I allow 1 bump every 2 levels instead of 2 every 4, just to spread it out more evenly.
@@SomeRU-vidTraveler That actually started in 3rd edition, and it was actually pretty revolutionary for D&D: beforehand, magic items were the only method of stat-boosting once your character started play at level 1. And you are correct that it definitely reduces the need for stellar stats early on. Spellcasters do need high stats to access their highest level magic, but with level-based stat increase, they can honestly get by with, say, a 16 (possibly even a 15) in their primary stat at character creation.
@@Eisfalken Exactly... you'll get there eventually! It even makes it feel like your character is increasing in power, instead of just "starting off bad." What's your stance on stat caps in 5e? I get why they're there (balance and reducing samey-ness), but it just doesn't sit right with me that an elf and a dwarf could potentially cap off at the same Dex. I always rule that any racial stat boosts also increase your cap, and then I come up with other incentives for having players make characters outside the typical archetypes.
either that or a no-way street it gets easier when the rule of cool thing isn't persistent , isn't heavily mechanical or isn't already ruled clearly by the book but this is why we need a DM, so we can have things that rules alone can't make
Maaaan, I have a lawyer in my group. He is constantly arguing about some rules - all he considers is his own gain. His latest proposal was - I want to be able to kill someone with one blow if I roll high enough stealth or the person is sleeping. In order to avoid combat. He was really pissed that I was not allowing "such a cool RP moment". He plays a monk, not even assassin. Their half-assed attempt at infiltration has gone awry and suddenly he was like - well, I want to hit this berserker from behind and since he hadn't notice me I think I should be able to drop him in one hit. WHAT?! He was totally cool, said it should be a blanket house rule. I was like - ok, than monsters would be able to kill you in one blow also. And suddenly it was unfair.
Well, to be fair, on the specific point, and ONLY that, of the "sleeping enemy insta kill" I actually agree, usually when you're fighting someone to death you will always aim for the neck or similar deadly spot, but even if you land the attack the enemy still avoided it to some extent so that instead of the neck it got hit on the shoulder or something. But a sleeping foe won't do that, obviously, so it should be hitkill. And obviously again, the monsters would be able to as well
That's not even a rules lawyer, really. All he's done is suggest his own rules and try to enforce them; there's no actual precedence within the existing ruleset (and, indeed, a lot of things that outright contradict him) to justify this change. A rules lawyer is someone who argues for specific rulings based on their own (relatively) comprehensive knowledge of the ruleset (house-ruled or otherwise), whether that be for their own advantage, or to maintain consistency within the mechanical game. For me personally, I really enjoy finding legal, internally consistent means of doing a lot of fun, unconventional stuff like casting Dominate Beast on a polymorphed/wildshaped enemy or attacking myself on my turn to trigger Misty Escape before to avoid taking a much bigger, deadlier hit from the demon on my heels. In general, I tend to be the planner because I like using all of the party's abilities to the fullest possible extent.
Just want to let you know that you’ve helped a group of 8 soldiers get into D&D and other rpg tabletop games. You’re videos are awesome man, keep it up ! 👍🏼
I'm fine with rolling 3d6, just so long as we can put our rolls in the stat of our choice. Putting the first roll in Strength, then Dex, etc. is a recipe for misery.
I always used the one my very first dm used. Which is 6d6 take the highest three rolls and you get one free eighteen. I've still had characters that the highest stat outside the eighteen is a twelve. But I enjoy it because it creates a slightly stronger pc which means I as a DM can make stronger encounters without worrying about a tpk at lower levels
Ya know what is even more painful? Random rolls. Random assignment of stats from said rolls. AND THEN being assigned a random class after that. All the players agreed to that. I tell you it is panful to have a cleric with a wisdom of 11. LOL But then I had no one to blame because I agreed to the wacko concept. There was one guy that was fighter and had a negative mod for constitution. OUCH!
Nope. It was a campaign. What made it even worse was we played the parts. I was a half-orc that was a cleric of Gruumsh (random race). There were a couple of elves in the party. Gruumsh no likie elves but some how we came together. One of the elf boy and I played up the orcs and elves as enemies. Surprisingly we lasted till like 6th level even though the racism mostly split the party. It does get better, after the tpk, the DM gave permission to roll up and assign stats the way we wanted. I think the DM took pity and allow group cohesion.
When my dad was DM, every time we'd get off-track asking questions about the dice rolls or exact rules, he'd say something like, "The giant pauses while your characters argue with one another about something called a 'monster manual,' and he has no idea what you're talking about. His eyes begin to glaze over. Then, suddenly, he snaps out of it and swings the tree at you again..."
@@Zoomeep I can see both sides to it. You don't want to spend *too long* arguing over something, but at the same time you kinda want to an actual resolution. That second part can only be glossed over so many times, before it starts becoming a problem for the game as a whole.
@@InfernosReaper Same. If it seems to be a consistent problem (especially if it's a minor one) that keeps eating up large parts of time in the session, just state it for the players that if they waste everyone else's time arguing a rule for ten minutes, you will penalize them.
@@Zoomeep That's like the worst reading possible of that anecdote. The point is if you're spending so much time arguing about the rules, then you're not playing the game.
One time I was playing with a DM who changed her ruling mid-battle. She had let my druid escape from a Shambling Mound by casting Freedom of Movement on myself. However, after our Cleric got engulfed, she decided that being engulfed didn't count as a condition that FoM would work on. i was kind of miffed about that. Then I got the cleric out by casting Polymorph and turning him into a Tyrannosaurus, so all was well.
FOM for you OK, but that pretty much is how the shambling mound works and your FOM nerfed her mound, leaving her with a big pile of nothing as an encounter. She might not have made the right choice but I get her problem. You might need to run a few games to appreciate the DM view.
Having looked over FOM and the shambling mounds abilities. FOM states in the spell "The target can also spend 5 feet of movement to automatically escape from nonmagical restraints, such as manacles or a creature that has it grappled." While the Shambling mound grapples you and begins to engulf it blinds and restrains the target Engulfed creatures are still grappled.. FOM allows escape from grapple thus the engulf of the SM. Engulf is not a condition but an action that applies additional conditions to Grappled creatures. She technically made the wrong call rules as written but I understand her frustration at that spell basically nullifying the SM big action.
Shambling mound must hit twice with multiattack to auto-grapple a victim. Freedom of movement would allow the player to spend movement to escape the grapple. Engulf is NOT a grapple attack, but rather requires a grappled target to be a legal attack, and takes an action, so there is a window depending on initiative orders and surprise (although there is no "surprise round" a surprised character takes no action n the first round combat. The mound could potentially end up going before the grappled character in the initiative order, meaning they get engulfed before breaking free of the grapple) FOM states that all magical/spell caused movement penalties and restraints cause no issue for the recipient of the spell, and that they can escape grapples and restraints such as shackles. I would personally rule it that FOM would allow the character to escape BEFORE being engulfed, but not afterwards. The examples given give the impression to me that the spell is meant for escaping situations in which the character has the space and room to wriggle free. Magical spell effects slide off the character and the character is able to somehow effortlessly wriggle free of any restraints. When engulfed there is literally nowhere for the character to go. There would be no escape routes except brute force. It depends on how crazy you want to get with FOM's affect. If it was meant to allow them to move freely regardless if the level of retraint, then i think the spell would have said so plainly, rather than give out a few examples of rather minor mundane restraints. Personally i see it as mainly an answer to magical restraints, and most mundane restraints as a bonus, but with the exceptions of full body restraint (trapped in a rockslide, neck deep in rock, fully engulfed by a creature, swallowed by a creature etc) IDK, that's the problem (or advantage) of a lot of DnD 5e spells. They're quite vague on specifics. Whether that's purposefully done to allow greater freedom of play or whether its a side effect if the simolified system, i can't say. Either way, to me id say this is more if a case of DM's discretion than a black and white "ONLY ONE ANSWER"
I always thought Rules Lawyers were the people who tried to equivocate on RAW over its syntactical or lexical ambiguities; for example people arguing about what classifies as an "object" for the purpose of True Polymorph, or cheese regarding Simulacrum and True Polymorph, and every other way to abuse True Polymorph...
6:23 the rule of cool states that it’s fine as long as it doesn’t give you an advantage mechanily your players really are bad for trying to use the rule of cool to gain advantage
The rule of cool states that it's fine to bend the rules a bit to do something cool. That does in many cases give small advantages. It just should not allow to ignore the rules alltogether.
I've never seen anyone call for the rule of cool unless it mechanically advantaged them. The DM hardly says no to cool things that don't have mechanical effects. That would just be stupid.
Being a first time player I can honestly admit that I was "that guy " because it was my first character and I didn't want to get hurt/lose my cool armor. I didn't realize that I was making the game not fun or unfair. But after the game was canceled and I wasn't invited for a new one, I started to question if I had done something wrong. It hit me hard. But I learned. And I'll never forget. Sometimes you have to learn how to play well with others, and sometimes you have to learn that the hard way. But I'm ready to try again. And I'm willing to be more of a team player. But honestly some people (like myself) just have to realize how they affect others in a game.
That's brave to admit, I've been "that guy" when it comes to wangrodding and blurring the line between character and player. I had one bad experience with getting so angry at another player character I wanted to push the player down the stairs on the way home. It made me double take on how I was allowing the game to anger me. Thankfully I've never been like that since, but it can take one bad experience to learn.
Good for you for realizing that. I run an online game and we have a couple of young players and they suffer from this as well as powergaming. I did too when I was their age. But like you said, you have to learn how to play well with others. It's annoying to have to teach that to (some) young players though.
it's always interested me how strongly some people's sense of empathy is vs how weak it is in others. do you generally have a hard time gauging how people feel around you, or how you make them feel? i have this theory that cheaters strongly tend to be low on the empathy spectrum, and the worst are just full blown undiagnosed sociopaths. for me such a thing is easy - i joined my first dnd group recently and we're all generous people and play well together, and it makes no sense to me how someone can not realize the negative effect they're having on others, particularly when they start to show outward signs of frustration which they almost certainly did.
Ok, if we admit to dnd sins, i will do it as well. My first (2 or 3) games i was making myself the main character of the story. Not that i didn't let anyone else talk, but i was like "What do you think of this druid?" in a way, as if they are my sidekicks. I got that what i was doing is wrong quickly enough, by myself. And after that i was only making characters that are fine to be a PART of a team.
"Those people" are the worst. I ran a group for my first time and everyone was new to the game. 1st session went great! 2nd session.... I found the rules lawyer. He went home, studied up before the next session, then proceeded to act like he knew everything. Then the hypocrisy. Then the "that's stupid, it should work like this". All for the benefit of his terribly stupid incredibly strong half-orc. Every time he missed, every time he was hit, every time the party was role-playing well. I believe people that HAVE to have it the way they want in order to have fun are just bad players and bad people in real life. If you're gonna play a game, look for the fun in failure. Don't be so self absorbed and actually embrace what the game is. Immersion at it's finest
That reminds me of when older children tell the younger kid what to say during play house... so did that as a kid. Most people in their 30’s should be able to allow others some sort of... autonomy?! Huh?!!!
I fallow simple rule in my games "GM is a god and rules are suggestions" (what is actually how RPG work). Yes, I would correct myself if at the time someone point my something I forget about, but I don't retcon game with few exceptions and if someone get divine inspiration of punishment, what ever. If I find that players lie to my about stuff then they are fucked and I make that clear beforehand. Always make clear beforehand what is prime rule of the game, so no one could justifiably complain about that. If they dislike door are open.
@@TheRezro your broken English (no offense intended) actually made this way more fun to read XD but I agree completely. Setting up expectations for your players is important for game cohesion.
Its the chance of failure that makes it exciting. If there was no danger or risk then it would be incredibly dull. Becoming a Mary sue is an easy trap to fall into but it's worth avoiding it. One of my best moments in D&D came with the one last chance to save my dying character. Nat 20 and he escaped with 1 HP. It was epic because had I failed that roll, he would have been dead and I'd have burned his character sheet. ( I'd keep a copy of course )
I'm glad I have the group I've got, we were in a pretty beefed up fight (I wanted them to lose an encounter for once, they did, not TPK they retreated like I hoped), the party Wizard went down, she had become a lich by this point and was going to come back, but after the encounter was long over, I was like "oh shit your a lich, you're immune to crits and at least 2 of those were", he shrugged it off saying he forgot about that too and said it was still a cool encounter and we'd deal with it when we went back for round 2. I've got a player that likes to nix a skill or feat here and there which is ok as long as everyone gets the option and he does in fact help them see if its good or bad ideas, he does like to min-max but having cross checked his stuff several times it's always completely within the RAW.
"I like dice rolling, but it's too random" Someone slap this player. I am happy with my current 8 Str, 10 Con Halfling Wizard. I am scared for my life with my 5 HP, and having NO attack spells wee~~~~
I mean. It's pretty easy to roll up a spellcaster. You only need one good stat realistically. But say. For something like a monk. You need like 3, sometimes 4. Of course you'd be having fun if you rolled a bunch of low stats with one high one if you already wanted to play a spellcaster but if say just as an example, you always play spellcasters and you decide "I wanna play something simpler this time" and roll with the intention of playing a fighter but now you have to pick between having either no Con or no Str. I don't think that's very fun.
OBJECTION ! My client pleads that ruling Magical North Korea was an acquired right from the DM. Furthermore, Mr Abserd wishes to exercise his right to make Flatch Kriga exclusively distributed by Otterton Fisheries LLC. Please refer to the Most Favored Otter law of international commerce for clarification.
@@alexross1816 Your honor, Mr Whimsy is clearly biased in his testimony. As these pictures demonstrate, he has often consorted with malicious flora. Specifically a most beligerant individual this court banished to...to...the realm of El-Aye ! *collective gasp*
@@KaiserAfini I wish to point out your honor, that this client, as shown in these documents, has had known relationships with the very group responsible for instigating the aforementioned banishment of that belligerent individual and it is suspected based on this evidence that they had...a relationship, with a planned getaway to that very realm! This very courtroom and trial could be part of his plans to return at any moment. With such dire consequences, should we be focusing on such a lesser matter!?
@@KaiserAfini Very well you honour in this case I would like to call a surprise witness to the stad. One who is known for their bravery and integrity. I call forth the man, the myth, the legend that is The Hero of Parnast
Isn't that the _traditional_ roll-for-stats method? When Puffin said he only used 3 dice I found it weird, maybe that's from older editions but If I recall correctly in the player manual and DnD beyond the stats roll option describes exactly rolling 4d6 and taking away the lowest.
@@Xfushion2 4d6 drop lowest was standard in everything but 2nd edition. And frankly it was standard in 2nd edition as well in terms of game balance; if you look at NPCs, they had stats that were more in line with that method.
@Titanium Dragon To add on to that, 2e's default was 3d6 right down the line. The first roll was Strength, the second was Constitution, etc. Thing is, they also had every method under the sun as options in the PHB, as well.
After playing Disco Elysium, I feel like I understand why Rules Lawyers exist. When failing a roll only results in your character getting hurt, or looking like a fool, it isn't fun some people (me). I realized when I entertained the idea of save scumming, that I was only doing that because I was trying to make the character an extension of myself; I wasn't enjoying how much 'I' was failing. After that realization, I decided to play the character in a way that was vastly different than my real life self, which started to make the game more fun for me. Still didn't enjoy bad rolls, but they were more tolerable now, even fun occasionally when they resulted in a unique story path
Is that Basic rule Number for every roleplaying Game ? Don't recreate yourself in a Setting ? I came to the Same conlusion as you Not because of Bad Rolls but because of roleplaying. It's easier to roleplay a Charackter which might nothing or only very little in Common with you.
That doesn’t really work for me. My characters are very different from myself frequently but it’s the character I want to be cool and capable, so when they mess something up and look stupid or incompetent-especially if it’s the thing that they are supposed to be good at-it makes it less fun for me because I am invested in who this character is and I want them to succeed.
Matthew Heinlen understandable, but the line is when a player's "wants" extends into breaking/derailing/cheating a game (which yes conveniently forgetting is cheating) or arguing rules for their PC's image and subsequent personal desires for success. It makes the player look incompetent, stupid or childish and it's not fun for anyone involved. At that point you may as well just write a book about how great this fictional character is, which will likely be a very boring book. This is why I can't stand wikis or meta gaming (and in decades past, physical strategy guides) in video games. If you can't do something without trying or thinking for yourself, what's the point? A normal difficulty win by your own means will always be more rewarding than a legendary/impossible win where a walk-through held your hand the entire way. Don't get me wrong if you're playing at higher levels, the proficiencies should be enough to prevent amateur mistakes, but if you start out with an infallible level of skill in anything, simply because it's "your thing you do good", you may as well remove that component completely from the game because without a chance to fail it may as well just not even be mentioned. To keep that as a gameplay mechanic (at 100% success 100% of the time) is just you going on a monologue about how great you are, or worse, expecting someone else to narrate and others to listen.
Patient Zero sure; I’m not saying I should have a 100% success rate or anything. Just that not making myself as a character has no bearing on how I feel about it.
As a DM, any time "rules lawyering" begins to descend into pointless arguing I make a judgement call. I tell my players, "This is how it played out today. We can discuss the rule after the session and agree as a group how the rule will apply moving forward."
I do something similar at my table. If a rule takes longer than 5 minutes to look up and clarify, I make an ad hoc ruling for that situation, take a note on the rule, and we look it up after the encounter or after the session which ever is more feasible. Something else that works well with my group is that someone who is not involved in the scenario, will go look up the rule. My players started doing this themselves and it has greatly sped up game play.
I always establish in session zero, as foreverDM, that my word is law. if i say something its not to harm anyone in particular but so the game can continue with as few hitches as possible and i spend No time arguing with someone unless i made a mistake and multiple people agree, at which point we look up the rules and rectify it and i make a note about it so i don't make that mistake again. Homebrew is different because i made those rules and i sometimes change them, but ive never changed a rule mid game.
Honestly, I use the term Rules Lawyer in the same way you do: it's someone who will use, abuse, or ignore the rules as it benefits them. I guess I can see where that other definition is coming from, but the sleazy definition fits the term so much better in my book.
A very selfish rules lawyer is incredibly toxic. However, a positive form of rules lawyering is the Encyclopedia of the rules that the DM can refer to when they don't know and don't want to make a call that already has established Sage Advice or PHB reference.
@@gavir4379 yeah, it's like asking someone you know who have knowledge in say tech/it when you are having trouble with your computer instead of going to the tech shop.
Rules lawyering is fine as long as you remember 2 very important facts: 1) The D&D books are a guide and can be altered to fit the world. 2) (Rules lawyer arguing back and forth with the DM). DM: "You see a large mountain floating over your head. Slowly, lights flare along the bottom of the mountain. In common it reads out, "Don't f♡@k with the DM."
Late to the party. My simple rule when DMing is once the end of the round is reached no backises. That applies to me and the players. The players accept it because as I am running many things at once I sometimes forget that x monster didn't attack or use its special ability, while the players running just their character make fewer errors. Same applies to mistakes that benefit either side - catch it during the round or it is done. This becomes important when the consequence of an act only becomes apparent several rounds later. Best example was a monk who charged to attack a spellcaster at the rear of a melee not realizing that they would get trapped away from help when reinforcements arrived. "I wouldn't have done that if I couldn't escape". No, you did do it because you thought it was safe to do at the time.
I'm pretty lax about backsies, we all forget things in the heat of the moment, so if me or a player goes "shoot, that was supposed to be 5 more damage" then that's fine. But that monk player better be ready to run.
I always played end of the round, I always thought it was the rule for mistakes honestly. That only applies to mistakes, not actions that were a bad idea or you change your mind. That's a big NOPE however soon it is unless it's before you've actually done it.
@@kendrajade6688 No, once you take your hand off it you can't move it is correct. As in, you can't change your mind, as long as you hold the piece you can move it to a potential space and look, then change your mind and put it somewhere else, but as soon as you let go, that's your move.
"When you think about a lawyer...when people complain about lawyers; they [lawyers] are just saying whatever they have to say to get the thing that they want. They don't actually care about the rules at all." Best explanation ever.
@@brentonoftheunknown.821 But that is the thing. It is up to DM to decide if he would be strict or not. I personally don't mind if player simply prefer one style over another. I usually try balance things under group. Problem is that "lawyers" in most cases are simply those bad gamers, who don't actually care about the rules. They only complain to get advantage.
I mean, its a lawyers job to get the result their client wants. A lawyer who "does the right/moral" thing when it goes against what their client wants is a bad lawyer. A good person, but a bad lawyer.
Man, I've been trying to remember the name of that RPG! I wanted to check it out, and couldn't remember it. I thought it was a weird and interesting system, and was sad I couldn't watch the video again.
I run my tables on one simple rule concerning "false" rolls: "What's done is done, if the dice fell, none of you corrected me and I narrated the outcome, that's the state of the world and if you want to change things retroactively, you better start collecting those dragon balls."
For me, "rule of cool" translates to "things the players could normally do but want to be fancy with" Example: Players are in a bar fight and the rogue wants to swing from a chandelier to get to an enemy and make an attack. If the player could've done the same thing by just walking there and attacking, I'll let them do that. If the player avoids an obstacle or expects to not receive an attack of opportunity by doing that, then it's a no-go.
My group used to call this "Scooter Ladders." They had a guy (Scooter) that would stack up old calls, rules interpretations, situational advantages, and just try to nuke the game. So whenever someone tried doing mental gymnastics they would say "Stop building a Scooter ladder!"
Munchkins is a bit of a catch all term, I lump selfish "it's what my character would do" players in there as well as Power Gamers and Metagamers. To me Munchkins want to be as awesome as possible but disregard everything else, including rules if they get in the way.
People often use “rules lawyer” to describe something negative. If it was just someone who knows the system in depth along with common home brews, common misunderstandings and understands the DM is final arbiter many players don’t feel the need to use an insult to describe them.
The problem is Rules Lawyers don't whisper. The issue really comes in when things are argumentative and disruptive. Much like Walter from The Big Lebowski, they're not wrong but they're still an asshole.
I'd like a playlist of all removed videos. The original Devil's Gold video (the one without animation) had significantly better vocal delivery. At least if I remember correctly. I can't go back and check. Hint hint.
I also liked the original Devil's Gold / Weird West video. Some of the jokes were set up better or delivered better. For example, the "if he rolled a 1 on a blah-sided die" joke. Far better delivery originally. (Also, originally it was an 8-sided die, but now it's 6-sided?!? Unacceptable! :P )
I like that too, but I feel like it always comes out a bit higher than it should. Then again, I'm weird and like having vulnerabilities. Come to think of it, just rolling 3d6 and adding a rule where none of your stats can be lower than 6 by itself would be pretty cool.
Okay, so my sibling was doing dice rolls to determine stats AND THEY JUST USED A D20 AND WROTE DOWN WHAT THEY ROLLED. Only one of their stats were below 10. Honestly, with that amount of risk, they can have those stats.
Honestly, I really liked the old video, because it talked about how there are two types of rules lawyers: Those that just want to make sure the rules are followed (which is my kind), and those that only want to use them to their advantage (what I am sometimes confused for). I like being able to point to that when the topic comes up. You might not like the video, but I still request its return. Please?
Reminds me when i looked at the ac for chain mail and i looked unknowingly at Splint armor and i have defence fighting style and i use a shield and i misscounted i got ac 20 but it was ac 19 that meens several misses should have been a hit 🤕 ouch well i fixed that
@7:47, During character creation in a 3.0 Game I asked the DM "How do you want to roll Stats?" "It doesn't matter" was his answer I started rolling 3D20's :)
lol. One of my friends is always getting cucked by RNGesus. That's why in my game where's he's playing a halfling arcanist, I put out the rule "Roll for HP, but if you roll below average, take average." Don't want to have a level 10 character with only 10 HP. :P
@@meris8486 I am to an extent guilty of this. I like rolling for stats and random and I can deal with below average stats. However, if I get like a 7 and a 5 in two of my six stats, I fell bad about it. Also I don't like rolling for HP. I would rather take fixed HP or average HP than risk rolling 1s for HP gains.
As a long time GM, here's what I found helpful: • Just call the shots and find ways to collaborate to make it fun. • If a player is consistently annoying, set them aside after game and make it feel collaborative. Like saying, "I'll run things how I have them for the pacing, but if you have a couple notes for me, I'll see how I can make it fun for everyone". • I play with a lot of story-focused or friendly players from theatre, improv, marginalized peoples, or larp groups. • Using games that aren't D&D. Sooooooooo many games are as fun or more but easier to learn for everyone
I'm in the same camp as your regarding other systems (your last point), but recently I discussed running some Dungeon World or FATE with a new group and a lot of the newer players were actually afraid of not having enough rules to use as a safety net. So I guess my point is that you need to consider WHY you recommend more rules-light systems before you recommend them. Luckily we had a good talk and it seems like people are willing to give it a shot. I'm sure it's going to be fine, they are way better at improv than they give themselves credit for and I think they'll find that it's easier to get the scene you want if you don't have to read spell-cards in fine print before you declare what you are going to do :P So my take away from that experience was this: - Some players need (or think they need) some kind of structure more than others. - BUT, using concrete examples of when the rules got in the way of their character concept in more rules-heavy systems is a good way of turning them on to more rules-lite systems :)
@@Micras08 I really think the reason players fear playing more ttrpgs and trying out other ttrpgs is because D&D, despite overwhelming popularity, is needlessly complex and deep. Ryuutama, Dungeon World, and Fate I found to be incredible experieces for new players, and then if the GM is comfy, a hack or homebrew power per player really helps them feel like they're playing something unique and easy.
That last point. I've played D&D for over 20 years, but recently I feel like part of the problem IS the game - and how complicated it still is, despite 5e. I've recently purchased ICRPG and am really considering switching, even after all this time.
@@wanderinghistorian yeah it's ridiculous. For the three systems I mentioned, I can teach all the needed rules in like 10 minutes, or even less if they've played D&D before. And so customizable and simple if wanting to hack. Balance is also way easier so min-max/rules lawyer/power gaming is a lot harde to pull off.
My group understands the golden rule, "The DM is always right". And thankfully, regardless of which of us is the DM at that time understands that rules are there to guild fun gameplay, not get in the way of it.
Haven't played D&D in a long while but something you mentioned early on might be easy taken care of with a simple addition to the game. Status effects: how about dealing out cards that are shown on the table for status effects? Such as, if a player is poisoned for say four rounds, the DM can just say, "Oh, you've been poisoned for four rounds. Here are four Poison Cards--at the end of each turn, you may return to me one Poison Card. Until you have no cards, you have to lose 1 HP at the end of the round due to poisoning." Has any game or group thought of doing something like that? I could see it for any limited effect--attack boosts, debuffs, etc.
I've not done that with conditions, but I've been able to keep good track of those on my own usually. However, I do something like that with Spell Slots and potions, where I give them special cards to hold onto, and then when they want to use them, they just hand me the appropriate card. Helps keep track of limited resources in a way that's easy to understand without me having to watch character sheets like a hawk. Since they can't cast spells without physically handing me a card, it's an easy way for me to keep track of spellcasting without actually keeping track of it. They can't just accidentally or maliciously give themselves an extra spell slot that way.
I think you miss the point. Some DM's use gimmicks if they like, some don't. In this specific case when players help DM keep eye on the data is largely help to streamline game. For example they track own inventory and gold (because all that bullshit can be huge burdon). Problem with "lawyers" is that they interrupt game to complain when GM forget about something minor what profit them. Not the who should do that.
Play Online with Roll20, and it has little symbols you can add onto tokens to remind you of things... But, you need to remember to put them on, and then remember what they're representing. As a GM, I just say. I'm running the monsters. its on you to remember the status effects of your singular guy cuz I'm running 10 right now and am kind of busy. And I do that as a player to. I've annoyed my group several times by reminding the GM of something that negatively affected us. Such as 'Isn't the entire underground room we're in made of wood' after the Wizard sent out a fireball. Because I've been a GM, and I know how annoying it is to realize a turn later that you completely forgot something (Had an entire boss fight where I forgot he had a terrifying gaze ability, and after I remembered it at the end of the fight the players said 'we knew, we just didn't want to remind you' which actually really bugged me)
@@kharnthebetrayer8251 Yup. You actually sound like a good payer :D I also hate when people don't remind my stuff I forget. It always feel shady when they doing that.
I agree with everything you said except the rolling vs point buy thing. The thing is... nobody likes 3d6 no rerolls.... I mean, no one sane I mean. So I don't really think it's so unfair for them to go like "Yeah 4d6 r:1 sounds pretty good" and when offered the dumpster fire that is "3d6" and they immediately go to point buy.... I mean it's just common sense. It's like fire. Sure you're alright being in a warm room, but as soon as the room gets lit on fire, you bet your ass I'm crawling to the coldest part of the house. Also, about the randomness, they aren't talking about random chance They are talking about the fact that you can end up with one player with "18, 16, 16, 13, 12, 12" and another with "13, 12, 11, 9, 9, 7" That level of randomness is simply put, "NOT OK" but what he means by he loves rolling... well we all have dice goblins. We love to throw the plastic math rocks! And have them mean something. It isn't about statistical superiority. It's just about wanting our players to be more balanced and roughly equal to one another. It's not really fun having to play Wimpy Smallarms while your friend plays Chad Thunderblade over there.
4d6 reroll 1's imo is a terrible idea. unless that somehow means 4d6 drop lowest? thats the typical system used in 5e and I think its a good one. I also put a 70 minimum in there, as well as rule that you can lower your stats (either 2 from 1 stat, or 1 from 2 stats) to raise another by 1 (max 16/17 min 7). so if you keep doing that your stats get lower overall, but it lets you get what you want.
The best system for stats is "allow the players to do whatever numbers they want for whatever reason they give." Even letting them do all 18s is not a big deal.
4d6 drop the lowest is a far better option than 3d6. Re-rolling 1's just sounds... overpowered? It virtually guarantees you'll never have a character with less than 8 in a stat, and at that point you might as well do point buy.
6:03 I expect my table to keep track of everything involving their character. I try to keep an eye on it, and if it's a negative effect I keep a closer eye, but it's their job as players to be honest and keep track of what's going on. If theres no threats or penalties, theres no real reason to put encounters. I was also blessed with a very good table tho
Thanks for this! I'm a noob and am trying to watch out for things that I should avoid falling into... This is a good video for me to watch and know what NOT to do when it comes to "bending" rules or even when to approach my DM for things like that. At the moment I just kinda let everything roll. If we screwed up, we write it into the RP in some way and if there's something that happens shortly down the line that's detrimental BECAUSE of the screw up prior- I'll ask for some help from the DM and we'll make a small bend back in a positive direction.
I think we can all agree that a player that's considered a " rules lawyer" in D&D at least is the person who only brings up the rules when it is advantageous to them or their party, or a person who is just using rules to screw with other people. The person who wants to follow the rules no matter if it benefits them or not is more a " rules stickler", which depending on the group can be ok or not. This is how AD&D 2nd ed described a" rules lawyer", and I agree completely. Players should be diligent on keeping track of effects/ modifiers/ spell slots/ etc, the DM has enough to worry about . This can lead to dishonesty sure but if you have to cheat to enjoy the game your not doing anyone any favors playing with honest people. Sure I have had crap rolls that if I would have lied about something my character would have lived but D&D is supposed to be brutal ( at least the version I grew up on), that's the game and it makes the times you do pull amazing things off that much more cool when played honestly. Hell if you die honestly at least you have a good story to possibly remember, and if your really attached to your hero a lot of times your DM will bend the rules a bit to make sure your character is not gone forever. If something like a bonus or penalty is honestly missed and a couple rounds later it is discovered the best thing to do is just play through it IMO. There are exceptions I guess but like Ben said in the video if you wouldn't want to redo the rolls if something bad would possibly be the result then you shouldn't expect a redo.
Your player who complained about rolling "random" stats may be struggling to express a different concept - that not all stats (like 18 or 3) are equally probable. When you roll 3d6 that is an "averaging" roll, so the highest probable outcome is between 9-12. I've had DMs who do 3d6 but let you reroll if nothing over a 15 and can recall times rolling a dozen sets before getting something "interesting". Players limited to rolling a single 3d6 set of stats are going to end up with a lot of average characters - and I would agree that's not the kind of "random" I would want.
To me this isn't that bad, like rolling a low-set party is pretty good if the world matches and it makes the one time you get like 18 DEX or WIS feel even better. To me it's not re-rolling the lows, I can handle being very average, but sometimes you can be running a 5-CHA, 4-STR Pally and it feels like BS. Like you can eat all your stat ups for five levels just to kinda feel normal.
The PHB specifically says that the DM has the final say over any rules decisions - in my opinion, the DM's job is to decide when to say "We're going to ignore the rules becuase that'll make it fun."
Good take on rules lawyers. Typically the ones I run into in the groups I've ran are the ones who try to take advantage of the rules or pick and choose which ones apply, and yeah that gets old really quickly.
Me and some friends are getting started in 5e with me DMing and this is what I'm worried about happening when the mechanics become clearee to us and they might treat it like a video game with focus on edging out the best numbers rather than sharing a fun adventure together :/
As a DM myself, although only a novice, we have our own rules lawyer: my brother. My brother is one of those people who think that "If it's in the book, you have to follow the rule", which I'm totally fine with, unless the book describes it as a SUGGESTION. It doesn't help that he's literally read all the book. My rule for this is "If you can can explain to me what you want/what you're doing in a way that makes sense to me, I'll allow it". This doesn't always go far, though For example, for his character, he wanted a particular Weapon. In one of the books, it was comparable to another weapon, but it was for flavor. I didn't agree that the weapon he wanted did as much damage as what the book was comparing it to. I told him, "It doesn't make sense for the damage to be that high because of how each weapon does its damage". The only argument he had was that "it was aesthetic", which, for this discussion, wasn't enough for me. I had no problem with him having the weapon, but he would have to explain to me exactly how he wanted it, and then I would determine the damage. It turned into a shouting match. I don't have a problem with rules lawyers. My problem is when they try to argue about something that the DM doesn't agree with and is changing
I can see your point, but the weapon thing just sounds petty. "I want to have a katana, it's the exact same thing as a longsword, but I call it a katana." "Acthttually, katanas are sharper and lighter and made of inferior metal so it should be something closer to a short sword in damage." "Why do you care, it's a longsword in every way that matters. If I wanted a longsword you wouldn't be complaining about it so why are you doing so just because I'm calling it by a different name?" "Because that's what I think katanas should be like, even though you could have a regular longsword and it wouldn't change the game in any way whatsoever." ...or something like that. At least that's the way it sounds to me.
I can absolutely understand that. The line between causing trouble and airing a grievance is thin sometimes. For this particular situation, I'm assuming the type of weapon he wanted required a feat or proficiency that he didn't have. If he just wanted it for the aesthetics you could've made it a hybrid weapon with the stats of a weapon he could wield. For example, if I had a player that was a wizard that wanted to use a scythe, I could theoretically allow him to stat it as a staff with slashing damage. Of course it is fully within your right to just refuse and tell him to get proficiency with it if he wants it so badly. By contrast, sometimes players get screwed by their GM/DM because it's believed the rules as written are too powerful. I was in a pathfinder RP once where a player was an Aasimar cavalier. His racial heritage gave him wings, and his archetype gave him a ship instead of a mount. The GM thought that was all too OP, so they had him start without his ship and his wings were so damaged he couldn't fly. This was technically within his rights as a GM/DM... but it left the player without core class features and a distinguishing racial bonus. I don't think it was a coincidence that the player only played for one session before leaving.
@@armaggedon390 if someone did the whole katana/longsword argument. I wouldn't go into damage due to materials (cause they both do a lot of damage irl, and wouldn't want to get hit by either). I would go to the exotic weapons section of the book and get the stats for the katana, and tell him that if he really wants to use it without penalties then he should get exotic weapons proficiency feats. If it isn't in the 4th or 5th edition books then look in 3.5, and work from there.
Tell him to draw his character with a katana if he is so pressed about it, girl, like there isn’t a limit on his imagination outside the game. But, also, he is your brother so sometimes that gets in the way of being rational.
The newer systems are balanced for point buy. Point buy has an average stat of 12. 4d6 drop the lowest gives an average value of 12.25 + / - 0.05% Your way produces 13.41~13.43 I'm not saying you're wrong but I am saying that the game designers are pretty good at computing probabilities.... they suck at CR assessments though.
"Those rules lawyers", at least in my experience, are the ones who *just so happen to forget* something that would put them at a disadvantage, but suddenly it's the most important thing in the world and it can't be ignored if that same thing happens to a monster ar a random enemy. Personally, I'm a min-maxer myself. I just can't help it. When we're arguing about what system to use for something, of course I'm going to argue for the one that would help me. But the thing is, I am the DM in our current adventure, so when a system argument comes up, I let my players decide on a system, offering my advice in the middle, and make sure I use it for the monsters as well.
I know where you're coming from as I sit both sides of the screen myself. I might be a min-maxer at heart, but my DMing time has taught me I should put my time into polishing turds to maintain party balance. It has also taught my groups to not leave me alone with the splat books for any extended period of time ;)
I'll never forget my first DnD campaign when I got into a sticky situation with our DM. When making characters he let me explore after explaining the basics to me. Said anything is cool, even HOMEBREW, but I had to run things by him first. Fair, I thought. So I searched and searched until I finally found my race and class that i thought sounded BADASS. A warforged mechromancer who was fascinated with Human culture, inventions and traditions. I had this huge backstory and thought I was ready to go. Gave the DM my character sheet and things were good! We played a few games(5 pc's although fuck our gnome rogue for hiding in every battle and doing nothing we quickly abandoned him with no hard feelings), we had some VERY VERY close calls and all and all things went great! Then lvl 4 happened, and things got BUSTED. Fair warning, if you're a DM, NEVER allow a mechromancer in your games. It's too broken. If i chose, I would have had flight at lvl 1, I would self heal my lvl+con at the top of the turn. By lvl 2 I had 2 attacks with a rapier as 1 and a bonus action eldrich blast. By lvl 4, I had an AC of 20. I was having a good time, mowing down groups of mobs, finding myself in awkward situations due to the misunderstanding of sayings and traditions. But my team, my group, wasn't. And I didn't really notice until my DM brought it all up, and suggested we find a way to get rid of him for the sake of the party. I was a bit sad at first, but I also didn't wanna ruin the fun of everyone else. So, I poured that same love into a new character (this time he made me stick to the official books) and came out with something that I still really enjoyed, and that gave my friends a much better time in the game too. The first character was good at everything and the rules, just kinda allowed for it. But after coming to an understanding that flaws are FUN, and don't make you an attention hog, and end up making everyone in the team FELL useful, which is the most important thing, I'm glad we had a talk about the state of the game. I know this story isn't really about rules, but I still feel it applies to issues at the table. Just chat, try to understand everyone else's perspective. Also, have a badass DM that ends up killing your character by having an evil sorcerer take over his body and then destroy his old body with the pc's soul still in it, destroying it(didn't question it, meant no revives). This lead to a semi revenge quest from the rest of the party, who even though they hated how my metal man got them into so much trouble grew to miss my presence(really they missed my history checks and my ability to read and understand any language), and my new PC, and a campaign long villain! Sometimes shit just works, ya know?
The players made their characters and I wanted to start the campaign, but I cancelled it for that reason. Positive aspect is: I have time to prepare more things for my world. ^^
Funnily enough, when I was making a character for a game that sadly fell thru, I was one of the few to pick roll 3d6 for stats, since I'd already had in mind to chuck two stats entirely out the window for her for character reasons. AAANNNDDD I didn't roll anything below a ten. Didn't get anything above a 16 either, but I was like "here I am, wanting to throw Charisma out the window for Rule of Funny and Strength because I don't need it, and they're both 10s. Wtf."
What I usually do is use rolling and then a modified point buy afterwards. Basically, roll 3d6 for the stats, but if they don't end up making sense for the character, shift a point or two around between stats.
