Language, Not Rules 

I think the idea of needing to be consistent is why some players and DMs prefer a robust rules system. We can make a ruling on the fly and not understand the long term consequences of that ruling. And now we are faced with a choice, we could stick to it and potentially lose some aspect of our game that we held dear whether it be it the verisimilitude or the power balance, or anything else. Or we could change the ruling and though we have good reason to do so we may come across as unfair now that we are changing how things are ruled.

I agree with the idea that being capricious is what turned me off from two DM I have had in the past. I KNOW they didn't read the 5e rules and they had trouble with understanding nuance in games like Wiz War. One DM would systematically take the opposite argument I would be able to point out through thorough page attributions and examples. Issues I have had: the DM made me hit a party member with a fireball because I was in magical darkness, and to him, it didn't make sense I would be able to have precision to hit enemies on the left and not the ally on the right. But the spell mentions nothing about needing sight (just like attack roll spells. Usually saving throw cantrips do require sight). Another example: the DM doffed plate armor in one action when I cast heat metal. Same battle, the DM went invisible but did not take the hide action so I just happened to miss with Faerie Fire. Another example is DMs not understanding the mechanics behind heavily obscured areas, often still allowing opportunity attacks or just calling it blanket disadvantage. While the rules seem weird here, why be inconsistent. Technically, fog cloud can extend the range of your longbow attacks as a straight roll. That's how the rules work, but this doesn't make sense to some DMs but casting magic spells does. Eventually, it is arbitrary. I agree that being consistent is most important. Enough of these instances, you realize the DM doesn't pay much attention to detail or game mechanics and attacks you for "rules lawyering" which is basically the community-allowed cut down when things are too complex for them and they are feeling shut down. I understand d&d is a game that brings together the imaginative but it will also bring those of us technical science and engineering/STEM field people, and I feel like by not playing by rules, you're saying D&D is just for people who have imagination but no technical aptitude. The value is placed on those with imagination and not those who can handle complex rules systems. Why not let those who understand it show you why and then recognize others have strengths you don't? I recognize my story telling and authoring isn't as good, but I don't trash authors. Don't attack technical people because you're not good at it. You're making a whole video character attacking people who feel safe with rules. For you, rules hold you back. One is not right, but it is important to direct these people to games that place high priority on rules as written than to attack a common personality. These said people may take comfort in counting calories and writing down their sets and reps in the gym. Other people are extremely overweight and value the social aspects of eating and trying various culinary permutations of nutrition, something the American culture prioritizes and has health problems because of. So in the spirit of inclusivity, which I know you value having watched your other videos and being very liberal (ironically liberals are anything but inclusive these days), why is it ok for you to bash a personality style but it isn't ok to discriminate in other ways? If you don't like it, you can say what kind of table you wish to play at and save us all the frustration of playing together.

Wait a minute, this message says 1 day ago, but video was released only few minutes ago... did you time travel?

@@jrg305 Almost took you seriously until you decided to make it about politics at the end. I'm sorry you had a bad time with DMs who clearly didn't understand the rules in the first place (which is clearly not what he was talking about, btw), but it's not the same as experiencing racism or sexism or homophobia. Sit down.

@@jrg305 This may be what you took from it, because you feel somehow personally attacked, but you are off center on what he was saying. Having gamed with and under EE majors and coders I understand where you're coming from, but you've miscalculated here.

I like calling such folks "Rules Shepherds", just to distinguish them from the bad connotations to Rules Lawyers. They know all/most of their "sheep" (rules) very well, and keep watch to make sure none of them go forgotten or stray away (aka remembering the table's rulings and helping with the rules the DM has "forgotten"). However, unlike Rules Lawyers, who just wish to debate what is "right vs wrong"/why their "client" (interpretation of the rules) is right, a Rules Shepherd doesn't mind if one of the sheep is a bit different from how they think sheep should act (aka if the DM rules differently than RAW). Rules Shepherds care for the rules so they can protect/safeguard them, not to argue over them

I have to fight my rules lawyer tendencies, and the player/dm you described is how I strive to be as a player (it's hard, lol). @@Patches2212 Rules Shepherd is a great term I'm totally going to use in the future.

That's not a rules lawyer. A lawyer argues.

I think that a rules Lawyer would be less of a person who knows the rules and likes for them to be followed like a "Rules Scholar", and more like somebody who will argue for specific interpretations of rules that will give them an advantage as a lawyer is often seen as not really caring about what the law is or its intent but whether or not they can keep their client from being punished.

@@Patches2212 I love this. I was going to comment and say "I'm not sure you can truly call someone a rules lawyer if they are not shouting 'OBJECTION!' to the other players, DM included, on a regular basis." To me Rules Lawyer is in behavior, not in how versed someone is with the rules. The behavior described here is clearly another thing and I like Rules Shepherd as a descriptor for that!

I read this comment before the vid and I was *so* confused.

@@ZumbaMarx same, still waiting on ads

I'm a Canadian who has never seen an Otter pop. So I don't know which one of many such artificially supplied flavors blue might taste like.

@@MorinehtarTheBlue You ever had koolaid or gatorade? pretty much follows the same flavor-colors pattern.

@@MorinehtarTheBlue the "blue raspberry" flavor in most drinks is what he's referring to.

It's funny you say that, I had a conversation with a player today who told me to "Read the Rulebook, Nat 1s aren't a thing"... I proceeded to tell him that they are in my world, and he said "I want you to read the Rulebook and make a list of every rule you are following and every rule you are making up..." I don't think my campaign is the right campaign for him, and I think I'll tell him what you are saying here. "It's the Player's Handbook, not the Player's Rulebook."

@@pensato348 Making a rough list of things you typically deviate from the rules on isn't really a bad idea. For example, if you're going to be using a crit fumble table, a player might want to know that before they choose a fighter, where you could significantly affect the function of their character. Obviously, asking for every rule you're house ruling can be excessive, but if you know some ahead of time, that should really be covered in session zero. I might rule something different than the rules on the fly, but I do crits different than RAW, so I make sure to let my players know ahead of time.

@@paximilian4037 yeah, for sure, communication is essential, and asking for home rules isn't that bad of a thing. The problem was much more complicated than I could explain easily in a comment, but the problem really came from a sense of not wanting to fail... ever... not that the rules I was playing by weren't clear. I had gone over some expectations and home-rules in our Session 0, but I didn't expect to have to explain nat 1s and nat 20s being special, because I've never seen or played in a game where they weren't automatic failures or successes. Either way, though, it was nice that the disagreement happened because it lead to me understanding that our styles of play and what we enjoyed from the game were significantly different.

I run online using discord. I have a tab for rules. General rules that apply game wide. Specific rules, like can the artificers pet give or receive flanking. And as things come up, as they always do, I add to that tally.

it's only fitting since he is no longer the King of Kickstarter

What are lectures but rants you pay for?

It is a rant because of it's inspiration, which much be addressed in the work. Joyless pedants. This is good philosophy, and I want more of it. Matt covers a lot of other related areas of philosophy soundly, and exploring the philosophy of storytelling is something we are sorely missing.

@@nathandorsey9145 Ha! Well, touché...

I just refer to him as "Bugbear Prophet"

That’s exactly what I did! I spent a summer watching literally all of his running the game videos and then ran campaigns where I put his lessons into action. I’m a much better DM than I would have been because of it!

@@voltdragon Good on you, it's such a good launching point. I'm sure you're both starting at a better point and learning faster than I ever did. It's great!

If even the only thing people get from this channel is, "Don't wait. Just start." I think that's pretty valuable. Matt might have a different value proposition in mind, considering his effort, though.

That's what I did. 1.5 years into a campaign so far and going well. It helps that I have a great group of players of course.

i kinda miss those 3 hours fights about grapple tho. but man, todays roleplaying systems are fun and the amount of excelent GM's giving you advise is shoking.

I think this mentality should pretty much not exist after everyone has internet on their phones. It takes less than 5 minutes to find any rule and any explanation for these rules online.

@@chrisstoltz3648 it's your personal issue, not a universal one. Each group and each game is different.

@@helgenlane If you believe that then why did you try to correct OP? Clearly this works for them and their group, which is different from yours...

Wait, which channel am I in again?

🤣

i would like but it is at such a good number. 69. Nice. wow someone ruined it

I saw that, too. I wonder if we now get tabletop reviews of tabletop games from a not-brilliant man ... Sorry Nick, nice to see you on a completely different channel! And now we need to find out whether Matt collects knives ... or watches ;+) And yes, very good video. Thank you from me as well!

You know, I will still continue to correct that. That is the purpose of my online interaction.

Exactly, and that I think gets lost in a rush to downplay the fixation of following rules perfectly

Very well said.

Knowing the rules makes knowing when to break them an art form.

Yeah, his general point was good, but too much "mind-reading."

Well said, king. 👑

I think this applies to just DMing in general. If you want to be a DM you should read at least one module even if you won't run it.

Then perhaps the best way to say it is that, like with a language, the rules are most important when you’re a beginner and still learning how it works

Cannot like this comment enough. Langue is a tool for expression. And like many thing ps in life, just because you can, doesn’t always mean you should. And this actually cuts both ways for rules as well. Sometimes the rules are just bad, poorly thought out and implemented, or impede play in a way that is distracting and of superficial importance. At other times, your understanding of the rules is likely to be very incomplete and can have far reaching implications that create a myriad of issues that yank you and your players out of the fiction and enjoyment. We are human after all and not perfect beings. The key is to play and understand the rules to the best of your ability that best facilitates the kind of outcomes you are looking for. Rules do matter, language does matter, meaning does matter. But these things change over time, we are adaptable creatures, not mindless automatons. The rules and mechanics exist to facilitate the kinds of experiences that are deemed fun-nothing more and nothing less.

Thanks, that's exactly right. Colville picks some easy examples like "Let's eat Grandma" but not all examples are that easy-- we can look at DnD for the doubly ambiguous "Holy water or powdered silver and iron, which the spell consumes" components, for example; there's no single, obviously correct interpretation of that clause. And when some player casts fog cloud in the middle of a wolf pack, and the DM decides that there is such a thing as double-advantage, the player can easily be, "But negating pack tactics was the whole reason I did that in the first place-- it was a major part of my reasons for learning the spell in the first place." There is a clear analogy between language and rules here. There's no Great Dictionary in the Sky for any of us to consult, and DnD rules are no different. But there is such as thing as shared understandings, even if imperfectly shared, and those are important.

The best and to my knowledge, only way to stop things like what happens in r/rpghorrorstories from happening is to talk about it ooc, or stop playing with them.

Don't be consistently bad.

@@Vedexent_ this wasn't one GM and from my experience it's super common.

It can be difficult to recognize an unhealthy playing environment when you're in the middle of it. Many players will persevere because bad D&D is often preferable to no D&D. But in cases like this, no amount of rules will salvage a game being run by a jerk.

Yeah, exactly this. There needs to be a reason for every deviation, whether it be in language or games. Otherwise you're flailing around being confusing and frustrating. And here's the thing: Sometimes frustration or confusion is the purpose as well, but it still needs to be deliberate.

Something important to note is that the slightest change, where people will understand the meaning anyway, can give something a slightly different meaning. For instance, "wherever he is" carries a slightly different meaning than "where ever he is." The first means that he is somewhere that is unknown, whereas the second implies that he is in a place (whether known or unknown) forever. Tiny rule changes can alter things quite a bit and as a DM you have to be ready to deal with the consequences.

@@beardalaxy this is a great point - and further, you don’t even need to change a single word in a sentence to create this kind of linguistic confusion. To give a crass example, take the sentence “I didn’t screw your mother”’. Say this sentence aloud, and stress a different single word each time. The meaning changes drastically!

*80s sitcom theme plays* Matt: "What's wrong Tony? Have a bad game?" "Gee Dad, Darren is really hard on me, he's a real rules lawyer. I wish I knew all the rules, I shouldn't even BE a Dungeon Master." Matt: this video

Hello, Didn't knew you watched this channel.

Which is copyright 2008. So as old as 4E - so probably could not have influenced (early) 4e releases.

Exactly, being a pedant is TONS of fun!

Thanks for making the joyless distinction between the two ;)

Yo let's appreciate this comment real quick

You make a good point. My thinking following the video (regarding good game design) was "as few rules as possible, but with as much provision as possible." Sort of a libertarian mindset. Give the GM the building blocks, and let them run wild. There's no need to dictate every interaction in a system if the rules are well-written. Sure, there are scenarios where specific rulings are required - grappling comes to mind as one such case in D&D - but if your rules are simple, logical, and intuitive, the GM will be able to intuit a valid ruling after growing comfortable with the provided rules.

Have you checked out 13th age? It was made by former designers of 3rd and 4th edition but they wanted to make a more narrative rules light system.

@@vehmic6278 Took a look and yeah, very 4th edition at its core but with more narrative abstraction and emphasis on character than class. A good read for sure.

In skyrim theirs a mod called frostfall, which adds survival elements. you need food, sleep and to keep warm. its fairly robust and well made. most players find it spices up the game significantly. however it can quickly turn into a chore as your character gets more powerful and you master the mechanics. i think the same happens with alot of tabletops. like the rules for travel, or keeping track of players eating daily.

Having a lot of rules doesn't inherently mean those rules are hard to remember or complicated. Compare Pathfinder 2e which has a lot of rules, but a very very tight framework for those rules. Even if you do need to look something up, the system for something is always concise and simple, and the meanings of everything is codified into Traits, Feats, Actions, and Activities, so there's rarely any confusion. 5E on the other hand, is full of incongruently defined means of conducting various aspects of the game, and no unifying structure for how anything in that game works. Sure, you might need to look things up more with Pathfinder, but you're going to have a much easier time looking them up, and have to do a lot less reading when you do find them than you would with 5e.

I will defend 5th edition to this extent its way more accessible than other versions of DnD and has brought a lot of new players to the hobby. However, I have also seen players with experience in other game systems ultimately be disappointed with 5e though I can't put my finger on it either. Maybe there is a blandness to it? Maybe it's too low risk for the players? Not sure.

@@michaelduke9057 I think the "accessibility" is a function of the problem. In my experience, it's not so much that people pick up the game faster, it's that you don't have to understand the mechanics to play.

@@VegtamTheWonderer I agree it's a tradeoff. At this point, I feel as though naked 5e is underwhelming in a lot of ways, but it's designed so that a beginner can pick it up and learn it easily. Once you have a player trained on the D&D mentality, I think they're due for a switch. 5e is just the launchpad to the next thing. Whether that means 3e, 4e, or some of the crunchier 5.5e supplements is not for me to say. However, I really enjoy the idea that 5e is the core of a modular experience, so you can add crunchier "modules" onto it once players get acclimated to the basics. (I'm very into modding/optimizing parts of 5e to have the kind of crunch it's missing, without losing its simplicity and flexibility.)

I've had the opposite experience lol Haven't been around as long but I had the displeasure of playing in a pathfinder game and everyone (me and every other player who gets really into character and rp) was bored and playing was a pain. Turns out having to spend 6 hours to make a character and stopping the game every 5 minutes to check if player A can lift the rock player B can jump the chasm is tedious and terribly unfun.

@@photografo9240 I only see pathfinder 1 and DND 3.5 get bogged down when people keep trying to do stupid crap nobody in that situation would even consider, like trying to actually do a Fastball Special or something stupid like that. Usually I just ask, "why would your character possibly think that's the best option?" once and people stop doing that kind of garbage and stunlocking the game trying to stretch the rules to do something obviously nonsense. Or if in a goofball game, nobody cares what the rule is anyway and we go back to making it up on the fly.

Exactly

That's an interesting point but I can see holes in it. (Note: I'm not trying to use your language in a mocking way, just trying to refer to the point you've made!) In game, if a DM makes a ruling that favours the party the players are much less likely to "freak out", even if that's breaking the rules (social contract) just as much. Not saying it doesn't happen, but definitely less. And in the context of an audience viewing the game (who often you will see freak out about rulings that favour the party), what concern do they have? That the DM is going to break the social contract outside the context of D&D? That seems far fetched. "Oh he gave disadvantage despite flanking, so I'm worried he's going to run a phone scam?" Maybe that's not a great example of breaking the social contract. Licking a spoon and putting it back in the drawer?

@@ianp7054 I dunno...most "rules pedants" I know are as happy to point out rules that hurt their own situation as much as those that help them.

The first and foremost social contract is that it is the DMs domain, who then serves the players needs. The DM can't break nothing because the DM sets everything lol.

@@ianp7054 I HATE it when the DM ignores rules in a way that favors the party. I hate it so much. It makes me feel like the entire reason for the parties success in that situation came down to DM fiat. Why did we even bother rolling dice or trying in good faith to overcome the problem if the DM is just going to hand wave and make sure we succeed no matter what. I want successes and failures to both feel earned in the same way. Follow the rules, please.

I like this perspective on the matter, and actually, as a DM, I profondly when I say to my players "Well, here is the rule as written, here is how I understand it. If you can convince me that I can interpret the rule in a way that lets you do what you intend the way you intend to do it, then you can try it your way". I enjoy debate about rules, as long as they are not one hour long.

@@bitghost4700 Oh? I did have to go in and add -ed after a particular word, but please prove to the world how skilled you are and point out mistakes in a RU-vid comment. EDIT: I don't care if I make mistakes in a RU-vid comment as much, especially since I tend to change thoughts or sometimes lose attention since I'm listening to the video. Also, I may have come off as exceedingly snarky as I'm working at the moment, so I'll just apologize now for the unnecessary tone, but I still stand by the intent of my words, not the severity. :)

Whom'st'd've'nt kept you from your expression?

Just want to chime in that a) I've had a similar growth pattern and share a similar stance, and b) I really dig your profile picture

I would strongly recommend Pathfinder 2e, it keeps the larger amount of content and more in depth rules, but also takes notes from 5e on simplicity and intuitiveness. You can make genuinely interesting builds, and the versatility of the feat and 3 action systems really creates an engaging and fluid experience. I built a Champion (paladin, but more versatile) which I designed to be an AC machine. In any other system, it would have been boring to play, but the 3 action system allowed me to break my “Move, Raise Shield, Take Cover, (Wait for enemy attacks to spend my reaction)” in favor of more interesting activities. Despite building such a formulaic and repetitive character, I had more fun playing that character than any other I’ve played before.

I'm torn on 5e. As a DM I like the simplicity, as a player I don't feel like any character I make feels unique and worse I don't feel like my choices are really significant like they were in previous editions. If I can (try to) do anything not covered by the rules it either isn't something unique to my character choices or my DM had to come up (and maybe playtest) the rule on their own which isn't easier.

as an old forever pathfinder DM I getcha completely. I ended up just trying to keep the world rules consistent and if a player wanted to do something whack they were responsible for maintaining those rule systems themselves (which they did happily funny enough). Playing physically helps this though, idk how online dms cope.

I think your experience only strengthens his point! A more robust set of rules gives all players a more firm grasp of the language they need to use to attempt things. To know that there is already a rule puts more confidence in a players decisions

If you haven't heard of it, I'd recommend having a look at Open Legend. It's designed so every action is vaguely defined, encouraging players to explore ways they can flavor their characters' abilities. Invoking "slowed" on an enemy halves their movement speed, but that can be done by casting a time spell or by throwing caltrops. It excites the imagination while staying open-ended enough to be bent to the table's needs.

I think this goes to Matt’s comment on consistency. By all adhering to the rules more strictly, you can stay consistent across gm’s and maintain the local realism of the world you’re playing in. Thinking of the rules as language still makes sense. If multiple writers worked on the same book, you would want them to speak the same dialect and use words in the same ways in order to maintain the consistency of the main characters’ personalities and speech patterns, and in order to make the transitions between chapters as seamless as possible. Maybe a better way to describe this would be multiple actors playing the same character. If two separate film adaptations of Batman were being produced with two different casts, the best way to make them feel like they take place in the same universe would be to adhere as strictly as possible to the comics. It’s not because the comics are particularly virtuous, it’s simply because they’re the most complete style guide for how batman should be.

That's a good idea. You don't want the players to not know what they can and can't do across the same campaign.

I too have a West Marches-ish campaign! Ours is on Discord. We've done much the same, sticking to RAW as much as we are capable. Like you said, this is rather important with multiple DMs. That's why I enjoy having a plain and straightforward RAW game, as well as a home game where I'm able to express a story in a fun and satisfying way without having to overly worry about the rules.

This is a good thing to point out. I bailed on a westmarch style campaign because there was one GM in particular who ran combat differently than just about everybody else and severely punished martials/short rest characters with his style. Would have been nice if he could have gotten reigned in by the other GMs to be consistent with how others did things.

I am in Westmarch campaign and we don't stick to RAW very often at all, but I think there is a lot of discussion with DM's concerning rules. Each DM does have their own style so there is certainly some inconsistency over how they apply the rules (which is inevitable unless you go RAW) , but it was never different enough to effect how the game was played. I think not doing RAW can work in a westmarch so long as there is a good communication between DM's and players and a general. I think you can do either butnot going RAW and making it work is likely a fair bit more effort but I think personally it is worth it. In conclusion, Westmarches are great. Would recommend to anyone who has yet to play in one.

Absolutely no offense meant by this. But to me that sounds absolutely miserable. I barely have 3 hours in a week to plan the entire game. Wasting 6 on 1 encounter? I would probably kill myself. Again, thats just my perception

@@Braincain007 Barely 3 hours out of 168 hours available in week? The hell you doing with your life?

@@flowonthego oh yeah because I don't sleep, work, go to classes, eat, use the bathroom, exercise, talk with friends or family, drive anywhere, or consume any other forms of entertainment during the week. Some of us have lives dude. Edit: I also forgot to mention, you know, running the actual game. Which in itself takes 5 hours a week. And I run 2 games, so that's actually 10 hours. Then if I prep for 3 hrs each that's another 6 hours.

I think that the negative view of this is that you are saying that PF becomes a puzzle game for the players. This is analogous to playing a board game. Are you actually roleplaying with the view of your characters of the world? Can they know those rules?

@@paulsnowuk We roleplay plenty outside of combat. In combat, the stakes get a lot higher and there is already a big element of randomness from the dice. The character may not in-universe understand the full intricacies of the five-foot-step, but they DO understand how fighting works and how to do it effectively, and they want to win.

@@michaelramon2411 So in-universe, they live in a world where movment is quantised into 5-foot segments? They manipulate a world with that nature to it? Doesn't this show the rules are only a tools to help model what's going on. You can't take them seriously as a 100% true representation of the nature of the world.

I mean, if that was happening consistently over the course of a few sessions, that DM should have sat down and figured out what was going on with their player's abilities rather than saying "no you can't use it." If not, those players should sit their DM down and say "this is ridiculous, this is how it works, learn it so I can use it." If this was just one session, then the player who knew what was going on should have given a quick summary of what their ability was. Especially Sneak Attack. That is both simple to learn and simple to teach. This situation seems to fully come down to a lack of communication between DM and player, which is a much deeper issue than the type of language being used to communicate.

I think Matt has mentioned in a video (I could be wrong - not trying to put words in his mouth) it should be the player explaining how player abilities work if the DM doesnt remember; the DM has enough to worry about with all the rest of the game. If the DM is ignoring the player attempting to explain (and I would assume both your example players did try) then that isn't just ignoring the rules, its ignoring the players. TLDR: the DM should understand the main rules and should be able to rely on players to know their class.

The players should have a good grasp of rules around their own characters. It shouldn't be the DMs job tho the DM should try and understand.

@@Eric_The_Cleric in the sneak attack case, we had to stand our ground. I served as rules lawyer for the rogue player and it heated up before getting some consent.

@@stealthington True, but the DM should understand enough of the rules to correctly award the players for using their options rules-wise. There is a level of player's agency based on the understanding the players have of the rules of their characters, a DM should account this.

Remember to also plead with Justin Timberlake.

You are probably aware, but Matt is about to release his recorded 4e games to RU-vid.

Very much this. That video still resonates with my GMing style and general approach to this hobby - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-3v2_JDz2Di0.html

I tend to go with folks, but I think it communicates my intent :)

@@stealthington Absolutely... and if you're Australian/British it's also perfectly acceptable and friendly in adult company to just say "how ya doin, C***s". As long as the intention is clear to everyone it's a win.

@@grahamstewart2968 I fucking love Australians hahaha

@@stealthington I have adopted folks as well. I'm a Malaysian that sounds like an American Southerner from time to time lol.

@@grahamstewart2968 Depends if you know the guy, and you may seem like a bogan if you just start saying it.

“Whilst not directly correlated, sloppy writing strongly implies sloppy thinking - and we already have enough sloppy thinkers”

There is a big difference between never spelling a word the same way twice and consistently spelling it the same--albeit wrong--way.

Love your comment and I stand by it. Basically you need to really understand the rules in order to "correctly" break them

This is correct. Thank you, glad someone is saying this.

But not too professional. Like a good middle manager.

@@thecoolerrats7144 Like a retail boss who will let you leave work early to pick up your kid from school.

@@Drekromancer or the down to earth owner of a small business…hey, wait…

but that is the rule for 3e, circumstance bonus = anything the DM thinks is cool.

Hail, TTS Exodite, praise the Man-Emperor of Man

YOUR fun generally does not translate to "the group's fun." I enjoy min-maxing, but I can also turn that off and actually enjoy the game as opposed to enjoying the game-design.

*pedant sorry, I had to

@@Linruat exactly, some of us joyless pedants can do both.

@@Linruat I also turn my rules nerd off when I’m playing. Additionally when the GM does have a rules question it’s nice to have a person around who finds joy in reading through the FAQs.

@@alexwinter8423 Thanks.

If a DM consistently overrides RAW, especially to the detriment of the players, and without discussing these changes in advance, then that is a problem. That problem usually occurs because the DM has adopted a competitive mentality. Unless such a mentality is agreed upon by everyone, it's very unhealthy for a game of D&D, and it is a violation of the social contract. Likewise, players who adopt a competitive mentality, calling out their DM or arguing over the rules, are also violating the social contract. It isn't the act of sticking to the rules that makes you a joyless pedant. It is the underlying need to confront others about the rules. Calling out and actively discussing problematic behaviors is not unkind. It is the responsibility of the DM, and it is how adults handle conflicts. As for neurodiversity, I greatly appreciate the intent behind the term. I am considered neuro-divergent. Normalizing differences is very important, and it should be encouraged. No one should feel abnormal or be labeled as such. But let's be realistic here: from a practical standpoint, the term is mostly meaningless because we all see and experience the world differently. It isn't as if all neurotypical people are a monolithic hive mind who all experience the world the same way. Viewing the world differently isn't an acceptable excuse for game ruining behaviors, and acting as if calling out those behaviors is discriminatory is a cop out.

@@proteuswest1084 I appreciate the time you took to respond. I disagree with pretty much everything you said. But I don't have the energy to argue, so I'm gonna walk away.

I don’t think Matt is necessarily calling you a joyless pedant. You’ve expressed a reason for sticking closely to the rules that helps you and your table enjoy the game. As far as I’ve interpreted, the people who are joyless pedants are those who stick to the rules for no other reason than that they are the *rules* and thus must be followed. That certainly wouldn’t include you and your friends based on what you’ve said.

“Sticking to the rules as closely as we can ensures that we can play together and with other people with as little friction as possible. Calling us joyless pedants is unkind.” I would suggest you go back and give the video a rewatch without this thought in your mind, and you might realize that nowhere did he call what you described as joyless pedant and in fact he’s advocating for the common language you’ve developed.

@dwil0311 Edited to remove comment, I super didn't realize I wasn't the one being addressed. My bad.

This wasn't a rules issue. This was a DM issue.

Consistency is key. A DM once ruled their dragons are vulnerable to lightning. That's fine. I chose spells accordingly. Then we came across another dragon, same colour, same age, but he was immune to lightning. Reason? "Well this one just has it." If you, as a DM, are training your players on your custom enemies, please do not penalize them when they learn your custom enemies.

Yeah, there's a limit though. I just played a session where a player tried to steer one ship in to another to crush a sea creature, in the astral sea. What are the rules for that? DM made a ruling, there were some rolls, and it was an awesome moment we'll talk about in the future.

@@ianp7054 "What are the rules for that?". Depends on the system surely? Some systems could have rules for hitting with vehicles, some won't. I'm saying that the rule existing is always better. Because it allows it to be a balanced choice and helps solidify consistency within the system. A choice made by designers will always be more balanced and consistent then a choice made by me on the fly. Doesn't mean I don't believe in improvising, if I don't know the rule (or it doesn't exist) I must. But knowing the correct rule is significantly better.

@@janfransdevries8032 Agreed. And rules are a good tool to insure the consistency

@@janfransdevries8032 That DM should have told after the second dragon was not affected by the lightning that the first dragon had a curse.

I think that there is room for it to be a DM decision and still risk failure. If you do something not specifically outlined by the rules but not necessarily forbade by them, then a line of logic has to be drawn from similar ideas present. When my players do it, I have to find the closest thing I can to it in my brain's encyclopedia and then reverse engineer a skill check, ability roll, a DC, something to make the unordinary into extraordinary, whether it be a success for failure. But that doesn't inherently mean that the DM has simply given you something for nothing y'know?

I imagine that, like all things, balance is key. If you and your group enjoy strictly following rules, have at her. I understand and fully support that. I groan at many seemingly random calls, to be sure, and had to leave the room during several Mercer moments... But I think it's fair to say its a bit excessive if one's fun is ruined because D'borah can't actually light candles with sacred flame and that neither the DM nor that greenhorn harpy knew better, invalidating other cantrip selections and vastly overpowering an already-twinked class. She's been playing for four months, already. The other day, she tried to mount and dismount in the same turn. Mount rules are quite concise, yet--again--she and the DM botched it. Also, the DM let our bard use a rapier without penalty during last week's underwater section. Said "it's a thrusting weapon, so I'll allow it," as if that made it right. Git. I set him straight, though. I pulled out my book, flashed it in his face, and shamed his foolish ways. Not all that have a preference for the rules are joyless pedants... But some are.

This isn't an argument for 'no rules' in any way, shape, or form.

@@steven7159 it's a fair point, though. Where's the line between a game and unbound improv? If the numbers are arbitrary, why have them? I fully agree with Matt that joyless pedants are a bane to TTRPGs, but I think it's worth discussing where the line with rules are.