I have a similar, but slightly altered version of the "rules are just guidelines" saying that I offer to friends and other DMs, that being "the rules can be broken, but before you start breaking any rules you first have to understand them." I personally think it's more helpful than just telling a newer DM that rules are just guidelines, as it still encourages them to learn the rules so they can have a better grasp of the complications that might arise with other rules, the system, or just the feel of the campaign when they break or change one rule.
DMs need to clarify also the tone. If they want to run Curse of Strahd and the players all want to play it, but the DM wants to run American Horror Story and the Players want What We Do In The Shadows, things are gonna get weird. I personally, am terrible about this as a DM.
@brandonturner4113 I do know how that goes. Ran a LARP years back where we went from "Frontier village" to "oppressing imperial interior" between arcs. Explained that tone was going to be slightly darker, and the empire is not changing and PCs would get in a lot of trouble for trying to force change. Really went out of the way to drive that home. A few sessions later, bad to pull a couple players aside and explain how what they were doing would likely get them and their friends killed. They complained that they couldn't rescue the oppressed and overthrow the power structure that had been in place for a thousand years and reinforced by the power of undeath.
@@brandonturner4113 kinda, except Strahd has about 11 neighbors who are about as strong and there to support Barovia, and a lich emperor overseeing it all.
Current campaign I’m in I know that our DM wants us to be lvl 7 by the time we face the BBEG, we’re also milestone leveling. I know that we are going to reach a milestone this session later today which will bring us up to level 5. We’ve been averaging a level up every one to two sessions or so. If we leveled up every session that would have been wild simply because some sessions were just plain old down time. I expect we’re going to have a downtime session soon too because we have to have a Christmas episode. So I agree, depends on the session but generally no to leveling up every session.
Paladin was actually my top class back in the 3.5 days of high school, but I also love mixing it up! 😃 I once played an oath of conquest paladin myself named Manon, who wouldn't shy away from any approach to topple her enemies. One of my most memorable experiences as a player is still when she shood defiantly and slashed into a mindflayer's chest at level 1, staring at him with hatred and determination, utterly unyielding. Much more recently I've created an oath of the ancients paladin in BG3. It's been too much fun romancing Astarion as her. 🥰
Puffin Forest had a video, that he has admitted to taking down some time ago, on his channel that broke the "Rules Lawyer" into 2 groupings; those he called "Rules Traditionalists," people that have memorized the rules and bring them up when they notice or are asked because they see knowledge of the rules as one of the core elements of a fun game and the rules are there for everyone's fun (Puffin Forest also goes into stating that you can usually reason with these people and they are usually pretty chill about rules changes if you explain why the rules have been adjusted, added, or omitted from the game you are running; which means they usually don't have a problem with Homebrew rules, but will still probably try to figure out the best way to make the rules fit so they can better see everyone having fun), and "Rules Hagglers," these are who most people envision when you say someone is a Rules Lawyer and will complain and whine and generally try to haggle with you to allow things while trying to beat you over the head with rules they see as advantageous to them but also conveniently ignore if it doesn't offer them or their character some kind of clear advantage to continuing to follow when it applies to them in a way they see as detrimental. A video from a while back Puffin Forest said he would think about redoing his video on Rules Lawyers with some adjustments and the like because he just saw too many issues with the video itself after it had been up for a bit, which is why he took it down a while back and it hasn't resurfaced this whole time.
While I might not be an engineering student, myself... That *does* sound like a cool way to make a character based on Lloyd Frontera from the web novel/comic "The Greatest Estate Developer"...although, if I played a character using that concept, I'd probably be less of a jackass than the inspiration character (note, I said "less of a jackass" not "except not a jackass"...although I'd restrict the jackass behavior to antagonistic non-party members).
I also had a really cool paladin as a backup character (lad needs a campaign, please steal) This centaur was once a hunter and hermit in the woods, dwelling just beyond the borders of their band. Then, in the hollow stump of an ancient oak, they found something: a godling, not yet conscious and not yet formed. That was ten years ago. And these woods are no longer safe. So, child god carefully bundled and still dreaming, wearing the armor and weapons of those who have come to slay a god and found only arrows and snares, this centaur sets out as a paladin of an ancient oath, seeking answers to questions they never knew to ask: How does one make a shrine? How does one pray? How does one learn the name of a god?
Our DM has a nice table rule for potions. If we're out of combat, you get the full effect, but in combat, you have to roll whatever die it calls for. It's nice narratively speaking, because the image of any of us chugging a potion mid-combat and only getting 3 HP from it because we drop it trying to juggle it and our weapons and enemies is never not funny.
My DM does all open rolls but I’ve seen him use other aspects to give himself flexibility to manage encounters. One combat recently, he rolled 3 crits in a row on my character - but also gave me 2 divine inspirations. And that did really take the sting out of being so unlucky 😂
In the game I run, I use milestone leveling and there are several sessions between each level. It's been months, over a dozen sessions, and we'll be hitting level 5 after this mini arc. Because most of the material I have is for levels 3-7 and the current main plot line is only written to go to level 10 or so
That description of what a rules lawyer should be is what I always strive for but, man, sometimes DMs really test me. Like I know one DM who has you roll Survival instead of a CON save "because you're rolling to survive the damage" and Performance instead of sleight of hand with thieves tools because "we're seeing how well you perform at picking the lock." I get the DM has final say on the rules... I get it but... Come ON!
@@CrispysTavern Here's a free bee for you. Had a combat to free an entity. Our rogue, Wizard and myself were dealing with one part of the dungeon, while the Barbarian wa handling something else. The rogue and wizard both get attacked by someone they can't see, over 2 rounds, this confusing the hell out of us. My charecter is also near them. 2 turns later, this 'enemy' is still poking at us from the shadows, and when we ask the DM above table, what ability it's using to be able to do this, his response was, 'you don't know, you need to work it out' By now, the Wizard was down with the Barb, (some 200ft away) and the invisible enemy managed to move the full length of the dungeon, unseen, and almost oneshotted our wizard. The session ended after the combat was wrapped up, and as we had difeated the invisible enemy I asked what the ability was he was using. It was the gloom stalker's Umbral sight. Fun fact, Devil sight ignores this abilty. My charecter has devil sight, I worked it into her backstory, she was born blind and got her sight back thanks to her goddess. When I pointed this out to the DM, he simply said, 'I don't run it that way' (never said that charecter creation) and when I pointed that out, he simple said, 'If I had known that I'd just give him greater invisibility' I have more from this same DM if your interested.
One time the DM made my best friend roll a Strength save instead of a Wisdom save… to resist a charm effect. The logic was that her monk needed to like, fight against being forced to put this mind controlling hat on her head? As if the charm effect had automatically worked???? It was a very bizarre moment and if it weren’t for the fact that A) my best friend didn’t want to be mind controlled and B) me and her weren’t DMs ourselves, it probably would have derailed the whole session into something that wasn’t fun for anyone but the DM. (DM has a huge thing for “I know you’re in there somewhere” type fights.) Even more awkward the DM (and the other two party members) is a really good friend of ours and our former roommate. I hesitate to call it a full on horror story because we stopped it, and it was literally the 3rd session of DnD the DM had ever run so there’s still a bit of leeway, but damn was it a strange misunderstanding of the rules. We haven’t had a fourth session yet (this session was over a month ago) and tbh I’m not sure about the whole campaign but I’m willing to stick with it a bit longer.
Sleight of Hand for using thieves' tools with e.g. a lock or a trap is the single near-universal house rule that shouldn't bug me but I can't seem to help it. It even works its way into third-party materials.
On the (kind of) topic of unique takes on characters with classes. My most recent character is a paladin who by mistake became a necromancer by accidentally casting a spell. Now he has a skeletal bodyguard constantly around him
Good Rules Lawyering be like DM: well, i'm not sure how to rule this thing. Rules Lawyer: well, according to RAW, you're supposed to do it this way, but since you're DM, you can do it however you want. Bad Rules Lawyering be like DM: this is how i'm ruling this thing. Rules Lawyer: you can't do that because of Obscure Rule 798 only published in one issue of a gaming magazine that stopped being published during 2e days. Alternative to Bad Rules Lawyer: you have to let me do this because D&D Shorts said so.
I feel like 'rules lawyer' means something very different to me than other people. Someone who checks on rules for the DM, or offers advice or corrections in a situation where people aren't sure or where making the correction would greatly improve the experience? That's just someone checking the rules. A rules LAWYER, to me, is very specifically someone who is obnoxious about it: - Insisting on abiding by the rules during a minor situation where it really shouldn't matter (IE: "wait, we've been drinking, so you should take that roll at disadvantage!" during a friendly game of cards or something) - Insisting that a DM is doing something wrong due to meta information that neither their character knows, nor they can know for certain if the DM is using (IE: the time someone in my mom's campaign aggressively insisted 'zombies don't work like that!' when she wasn't even using the monster manual's zombies) - Being Confidently Incorrect, especially if they're rude about it - CONSTANTLY bringing the game to a grinding halt because a rule is perceived as wrong, especially when it's not even their turn - Objecting to tweaks or adherence to the spirit instead of the letter of the rules, when doing so would make the game more enjoyable for others - Being suspiciously quiet about the rules they might be getting wrong themselves To give a few examples.
Levels is one of my main issues with D&D, in large part because each level is a big competency jump. If you get a level each session, your character is going to feel like a pile of stats instead of a character after a couple of sessions. And it feels like it mostly comes from playing PC/console games, where the player character(s) often get several massive spikes in power over the course of a single game. But if you go 3+ sessions without levelling up you can end up feeling like you're not progressing (even if you get new items). And 2 sessions/level is not a perfect happy medium either, sometimes earning a level each session makes sense for the story, and other times not levelling up for 3+ sessions can help players engage more with their character. I personally much prefer point-buy systems where you're rewarded with some points every sessions, letting players either spend them immediately for a small benefit or accumulate to buy something more impactful later on. Of course balancing encounters for systems like this can be harder, especially if the party doesn't keep a similar distribution of points between combat and non-combat abilities.
I have read the DMG cover to cover. It taught me a lot when it comes to political structures and it's helped with world building at times, but I can honestly say I haven't picked it up since. It has a lot of valuable info, but I kinda prefer winging most rules that aren't clear. That doesn't work for everyone, but my players are having fun and that's what's important.
The best guide for learning to GM in my opinion is the book "So You Want To Be A Game Master" by Justin Alexander. It won't turn a first-timer into an expert, but it'll teach you more than pretty much any RPG book has ever taught me in my 20+ years of playing and running tabletops.
I open roll everything, even enemy stealth rolls, i just don't always say what I am rolling for. Occasionally, i roll a d20 look at it and make a hmm sound. If asked what it was for, I just say "we'll see".
14:33 So I disagree with the exact wording of "If you've seen one (warlock), you've seen them all" but imo if you change that to "If you've seen one warlock, you've seen 90% of them" it'd be accurate. The absolute vast majority of warlocks in 5e that I've seen take the invocation that boosts damage and basically just cast hex and eldritch blast all day. Like yes you can roleplay that however you like but mechanically they're all pretty much the same. Every other class, even the ones like sorcerer and wizard that also spam cantrips all day (especially at low levels) can choose different cantrips for BOTH mechanical or rp reasons, for example there is a good case to be made to cast Fire Bolt, Frostbite, Mind Sliver, or Toll the Dead in a given situation. In the vast majority of situations for a Warlock, they can ask the question "Is anything I can do on this turn better than casting Eldritch blast?" and the answer is pretty much always no.
I roll openly. Never any need to fudge rolls. Fudge the Monster's HP or give it a source of healing as needed. The players will never notice. Also, a boss can throw and AOE that kills some of its own minions. I use that too.
I think open rolling is really the worst kind of advise one can give on DMing, no exceptions. As a DM I fudge rolls when they would otherwise break the plot or kill player characters without good reason (good reason = player wants to play another character or does something really stupid).
I see a difference between a rules expert and a rules lawyer. An expert is there to assist with the game. A rules lawyer interrupts the game for their own enjoyment and ruins the game for the other players. In one game where I am a player, the DM will ask me if there's confusion about a rule, but I have never interrupted his session to argue about a ruling.
9:24 Personally, this is something I agree with to the point where I have slightly different terminology. To me, a Rules Lawyer is someone who has a good grasp on the rules and can help when the rules are in question. What becomes a problem is when a person does so to the point where it takes away from the group's ability to have fun, and when it gets to that point I refer to them as a Rules Monkey.
I think for the "Give what the dm wants" a better way is "do things that can be fun for the dm". From the way I've experienced things, dms create the scenario, players play through the and inspire the dm's upcoming scenarios. If you choosing to avoid all the hooks, buttons, and hints you're not helping you dm make fun stories or experiences. There are qualifiers such as what dms bring up in session 0 (such tone and expectations) that alters how this needs to be handled. But generally if players avoid all the conflicts, traps, hints and the like, why would someone want to waste time prepping things for players that are just gonna be shoved off the table? Why would they want to keep dming?
I feel like players should have their levels paced out by a decent margin. Not only does that make the value of their levels stick, but they're more likely to use their entire tool kit on hand.
I think the guy who said that players should level up once every session said that for all the way to fifth level, in the context of the onednd play test. Those opening levels are the basics of dnd and are just there to get new players comfortable. It would be pretty boring to have experienced players spend multiple sessions in level one.
My best bit of "bad" advice is, as a DM I require a certain level of complacency from my players. As in I can't spend 20 minutes debating with you why your character should care about the task I set before you. I will do my best to motivate you into raiding the goblin den but please just accept there that's where I have set things up so stop arguing why the official militia aren't keeping the roads safe.
Was that DM talking about Warlocks in 3.x? 'Cause I'd agree ... But it's been a number of years since you can't just say "D&D" and expect anyone on the internet to not assume 5e.
Some editions of the DMG are a lot more important than others. (Some, for instance, are VERY specific on how to balance encounters, and some incorporate at least some of the monster manual)
One way my friends put rules lawyering, is there's a difference between being a rules LAWYER, and a rules SHEPARD DOG. Shepard dogs keep things on track. Lawyers ARGUE. And some lawyers manipulate the facts to make their case.
I agree with the first one but instead of Matt Mercer, I'd highly recommend reading the DM section for Into the Odd and Electric Bastionland. For reading that isn't necessarily a ttrpg book, "So you want to be a game master?" by Justin Alexander gives a lot of really cool advice. But at the end of the day I totally agree, the best advice you can give is to just run a game. Other people can provide frameworks that allow you to figure out how your table is going to enjoy a game, but only your table will know what they will enjoy. And sometimes those frameworks are only really useful when you already know what you're looking for, but you don't know how to do it.
6:14 Also its funny as shit that someone is flipping out about Matt Colville removing roll to hit when games have been doing this since 2014. DnD people truly live in a design bubble lmfao
Just a note... Uther the Lightbringer is anything but a Paladin. In fact, I'd say that the Lich King is more good aligned than him. This is a guy who is hungry for power, a coward, and unable to make tough calls... All the while backstabbing and committing treason when the kingdom is in dire need, and wanting to bed the girlfriend of the Crown Prince, forcing the crown prince to become a Death Knight, and trying to forcibly marry the princess, all the while trying to break the will of both the King and Princess. Because he wanted to rule as King, and saw that he wished to rule with an iron fist. At most, he's an anti-paladin.
Yo. What? Uther and Calia never got together. Uther was never into Jaina. Uther and Arthas' father barely share scenes in Warcraft 3. I read all of chronicle too. Nothing about... like ANY of this. Are you from an alternate universe?
@@CrispysTavern He abandoned his duties in Arthas' time of need. Instead of supporting Arthas during the entire Stratholme incident, he ran away back to Lordaeron to play politics to alienate Arthas from the throne, and his father. Arthas made a very difficult choice, one that a Paladin had to make. It was extremely time sensitive, and it could have caused the entire realm to turn into the undead, at Stratholme. Making a tough call to wipe out the people wasn't an evil action, it was a shade of grey. There was no time to study or bring forth a cure, waiting too long could give numbers to the Scourge, and it being a well sized army against the Alliance... And Uther playing political games. It was an ugly situation, and Uther shirked from his duties, and went home to play politics, becoming the power behind the throne, slandering Arthas to his father, after the Culling of Stratholme. This was not an easy choice, but in Warcraft 3, the choice was not easy. Going to convince the King to turn on Arthas, who acted as a Paladin and a Prince in his own right, and to give him more authority over matters, including over matters of the royal family, does imply that there are political interests in Uther. Uther was more of a politician than a righteous Paladin. Had he decided to support Arthas, then maybe he wouldn't have needed to go find Frostmourne, and turn into the Lich King. And no, I'm not from an alternate universe. I'm sorry if it seemed rude, but Uther doesn't come across as a holy knight, similar to individuals like Sturm Brightblade or Huma from Dragonlance. Sturm broods, but he always makes the right choice. Huma is one of the greatest Paladin stories out there. I judge Uther by his actions, and it's not exactly behaviour I expect from a Paladin, but it's something that comes across more like a politician.
@@CrispysTavern That's rather rude when it comes to your fanbase. We may disagree with each other, but keep it civil. Uther's actions by going straight to Arthas' father during the event at Stratholme and turning father can imply some political reasons for it, displaying that he may have a power hungry side. Uther actually reminds me of both Renard from "The Legend of Huma" and Par-Salian from "Dragonlance". But claim to speak for the light (Although Renard does acknowledge he went evil) but Par-Salian did something similar, by turning the mage Raistlin into a being of evil, and when Raistlin saved the world of Krynn, Par-Salian claimed credit... Even when Par-Salian was pretty much excusing the very evil head of the Black mages, who wished to use necromancy to bring forth an evil goddess into the world, because he was in love with her... When if he simply stripped her of her power, Par-Salian would have avoided almost the end of the world. Uther is no saint. It was a grey situation, and if he was loyal to the crown, he would have told Arthas to stay back, as he would do the job of taking down the Scourge that day. He fled Stratholme in the lore, when it was a difficult decision for a King to perform.
Hiding dice rolls so you have the opportunity to fudge them is a big red flag for me. Yes, your BBEG can die, yes, your party members can die, yes your adventure can go off the rails but if there is no chance of that happening then why roll the dice in the first place? Sometimes things need to go in unexpected directions
I think it's a balancing act. If you as a GM can get away with slight "nudges" for the sake of enhancing players' enjoyment of a game, the returns can be worth it. It does require a GM to read the room and be confident in their ability to improv though.
@@MelvinBisonSA Any DM not willing to roll combat dice in front of the players doesn't deserve to have the players roll in front of them. Trust is a two way street
Crispy, I love you, but Warlock is my least favorite class. Every other class I can easily find a creative way to express or flavor them, but Warlock just feels like a creative dead end. My juices just dry up when I look at Warlock because the builds that Warlock encourages just lead to the same ideas: spam the hell out of eldritch blast and only ever use your spells if you absolutely need to. Im sorry. I just do not like warlocks.
I have a similar, but slightly altered version of the "rules are just guidelines" saying that I offer to friends and other DMs, that being "the rules can be broken, but before you start breaking any rules you first have to understand them."
I personally think it's more helpful than just telling a newer DM that rules are just guidelines, as it still encourages them to learn the rules so they can have a better grasp of the complications that might arise with other rules, the system, or just the feel of the campaign when they break or change one rule.
To quote Bull Gator: "Good judgment comes from experience. And experience? That comes from BAD judgment!"
DMs need to clarify also the tone. If they want to run Curse of Strahd and the players all want to play it, but the DM wants to run American Horror Story and the Players want What We Do In The Shadows, things are gonna get weird. I personally, am terrible about this as a DM.
Cos is a weird one.
Sometimes you can session 0 explain the tone and everything
And the players can still ask wheres the heroic fantasy 2 sessions in.
@brandonturner4113 I do know how that goes. Ran a LARP years back where we went from "Frontier village" to "oppressing imperial interior" between arcs. Explained that tone was going to be slightly darker, and the empire is not changing and PCs would get in a lot of trouble for trying to force change. Really went out of the way to drive that home. A few sessions later, bad to pull a couple players aside and explain how what they were doing would likely get them and their friends killed. They complained that they couldn't rescue the oppressed and overthrow the power structure that had been in place for a thousand years and reinforced by the power of undeath.
@@jodymorgan2805sounds like trying to overthrow strahd at lv 3 xD
@@brandonturner4113 kinda, except Strahd has about 11 neighbors who are about as strong and there to support Barovia, and a lich emperor overseeing it all.
Current campaign I’m in I know that our DM wants us to be lvl 7 by the time we face the BBEG, we’re also milestone leveling. I know that we are going to reach a milestone this session later today which will bring us up to level 5. We’ve been averaging a level up every one to two sessions or so. If we leveled up every session that would have been wild simply because some sessions were just plain old down time. I expect we’re going to have a downtime session soon too because we have to have a Christmas episode. So I agree, depends on the session but generally no to leveling up every session.
Paladin was actually my top class back in the 3.5 days of high school, but I also love mixing it up! 😃 I once played an oath of conquest paladin myself named Manon, who wouldn't shy away from any approach to topple her enemies. One of my most memorable experiences as a player is still when she shood defiantly and slashed into a mindflayer's chest at level 1, staring at him with hatred and determination, utterly unyielding. Much more recently I've created an oath of the ancients paladin in BG3. It's been too much fun romancing Astarion as her. 🥰
Puffin Forest had a video, that he has admitted to taking down some time ago, on his channel that broke the "Rules Lawyer" into 2 groupings; those he called "Rules Traditionalists," people that have memorized the rules and bring them up when they notice or are asked because they see knowledge of the rules as one of the core elements of a fun game and the rules are there for everyone's fun (Puffin Forest also goes into stating that you can usually reason with these people and they are usually pretty chill about rules changes if you explain why the rules have been adjusted, added, or omitted from the game you are running; which means they usually don't have a problem with Homebrew rules, but will still probably try to figure out the best way to make the rules fit so they can better see everyone having fun), and "Rules Hagglers," these are who most people envision when you say someone is a Rules Lawyer and will complain and whine and generally try to haggle with you to allow things while trying to beat you over the head with rules they see as advantageous to them but also conveniently ignore if it doesn't offer them or their character some kind of clear advantage to continuing to follow when it applies to them in a way they see as detrimental.
A video from a while back Puffin Forest said he would think about redoing his video on Rules Lawyers with some adjustments and the like because he just saw too many issues with the video itself after it had been up for a bit, which is why he took it down a while back and it hasn't resurfaced this whole time.
i was thinking exactly about this when he got to that segment
Looks like I'm first in initiative
First in initiative
*rolls natural one on first attack*
On the artificer concept, I made an engineering student for it and I had soo much fun
While I might not be an engineering student, myself... That *does* sound like a cool way to make a character based on Lloyd Frontera from the web novel/comic "The Greatest Estate Developer"...although, if I played a character using that concept, I'd probably be less of a jackass than the inspiration character (note, I said "less of a jackass" not "except not a jackass"...although I'd restrict the jackass behavior to antagonistic non-party members).
I also had a really cool paladin as a backup character (lad needs a campaign, please steal)
This centaur was once a hunter and hermit in the woods, dwelling just beyond the borders of their band. Then, in the hollow stump of an ancient oak, they found something: a godling, not yet conscious and not yet formed.
That was ten years ago. And these woods are no longer safe.
So, child god carefully bundled and still dreaming, wearing the armor and weapons of those who have come to slay a god and found only arrows and snares, this centaur sets out as a paladin of an ancient oath, seeking answers to questions they never knew to ask:
How does one make a shrine?
How does one pray?
How does one learn the name of a god?
Our DM has a nice table rule for potions. If we're out of combat, you get the full effect, but in combat, you have to roll whatever die it calls for. It's nice narratively speaking, because the image of any of us chugging a potion mid-combat and only getting 3 HP from it because we drop it trying to juggle it and our weapons and enemies is never not funny.
Ive been listening for a while but never realy watched, so ive never seen what you looked like. I love the lipstick!
My DM does all open rolls but I’ve seen him use other aspects to give himself flexibility to manage encounters. One combat recently, he rolled 3 crits in a row on my character - but also gave me 2 divine inspirations. And that did really take the sting out of being so unlucky 😂
In the game I run, I use milestone leveling and there are several sessions between each level. It's been months, over a dozen sessions, and we'll be hitting level 5 after this mini arc.
Because most of the material I have is for levels 3-7 and the current main plot line is only written to go to level 10 or so
Mad respect months to lv 5 would kill me though lol
I have a campaign almost a year in (play every two weeks)
And they just hit lv 10 recently.
@@brandonturner4113 to be fair we're all newbies so every session is a learning experience. And I do give out interesting rewards besides just levels
I had an artificer who was an art teacher, using a painter’s kit to do spells.
That description of what a rules lawyer should be is what I always strive for but, man, sometimes DMs really test me. Like I know one DM who has you roll Survival instead of a CON save "because you're rolling to survive the damage" and Performance instead of sleight of hand with thieves tools because "we're seeing how well you perform at picking the lock." I get the DM has final say on the rules... I get it but... Come ON!
Okay. Adding this to the horror story bucket. THAT DM definitely needs to pick up a rule book.
@@CrispysTavern Here's a free bee for you.
Had a combat to free an entity.
Our rogue, Wizard and myself were dealing with one part of the dungeon, while the Barbarian wa handling something else.
The rogue and wizard both get attacked by someone they can't see, over 2 rounds, this confusing the hell out of us. My charecter is also near them.
2 turns later, this 'enemy' is still poking at us from the shadows, and when we ask the DM above table, what ability it's using to be able to do this, his response was, 'you don't know, you need to work it out'
By now, the Wizard was down with the Barb, (some 200ft away) and the invisible enemy managed to move the full length of the dungeon, unseen, and almost oneshotted our wizard.
The session ended after the combat was wrapped up, and as we had difeated the invisible enemy I asked what the ability was he was using.
It was the gloom stalker's Umbral sight.
Fun fact, Devil sight ignores this abilty. My charecter has devil sight, I worked it into her backstory, she was born blind and got her sight back thanks to her goddess.
When I pointed this out to the DM, he simply said, 'I don't run it that way' (never said that charecter creation) and when I pointed that out, he simple said, 'If I had known that I'd just give him greater invisibility'
I have more from this same DM if your interested.
One time the DM made my best friend roll a Strength save instead of a Wisdom save… to resist a charm effect. The logic was that her monk needed to like, fight against being forced to put this mind controlling hat on her head? As if the charm effect had automatically worked???? It was a very bizarre moment and if it weren’t for the fact that A) my best friend didn’t want to be mind controlled and B) me and her weren’t DMs ourselves, it probably would have derailed the whole session into something that wasn’t fun for anyone but the DM. (DM has a huge thing for “I know you’re in there somewhere” type fights.) Even more awkward the DM (and the other two party members) is a really good friend of ours and our former roommate.
I hesitate to call it a full on horror story because we stopped it, and it was literally the 3rd session of DnD the DM had ever run so there’s still a bit of leeway, but damn was it a strange misunderstanding of the rules. We haven’t had a fourth session yet (this session was over a month ago) and tbh I’m not sure about the whole campaign but I’m willing to stick with it a bit longer.
Sleight of Hand for using thieves' tools with e.g. a lock or a trap is the single near-universal house rule that shouldn't bug me but I can't seem to help it. It even works its way into third-party materials.
@@CrispysTavernidk if I'm just being a worrywart but if you were waiting on permission from me go ahead lol
On the (kind of) topic of unique takes on characters with classes. My most recent character is a paladin who by mistake became a necromancer by accidentally casting a spell. Now he has a skeletal bodyguard constantly around him
Good Rules Lawyering be like
DM: well, i'm not sure how to rule this thing.
Rules Lawyer: well, according to RAW, you're supposed to do it this way, but since you're DM, you can do it however you want.
Bad Rules Lawyering be like
DM: this is how i'm ruling this thing.
Rules Lawyer: you can't do that because of Obscure Rule 798 only published in one issue of a gaming magazine that stopped being published during 2e days.
Alternative to Bad Rules Lawyer: you have to let me do this because D&D Shorts said so.
I feel like 'rules lawyer' means something very different to me than other people.
Someone who checks on rules for the DM, or offers advice or corrections in a situation where people aren't sure or where making the correction would greatly improve the experience? That's just someone checking the rules. A rules LAWYER, to me, is very specifically someone who is obnoxious about it:
- Insisting on abiding by the rules during a minor situation where it really shouldn't matter (IE: "wait, we've been drinking, so you should take that roll at disadvantage!" during a friendly game of cards or something)
- Insisting that a DM is doing something wrong due to meta information that neither their character knows, nor they can know for certain if the DM is using (IE: the time someone in my mom's campaign aggressively insisted 'zombies don't work like that!' when she wasn't even using the monster manual's zombies)
- Being Confidently Incorrect, especially if they're rude about it
- CONSTANTLY bringing the game to a grinding halt because a rule is perceived as wrong, especially when it's not even their turn
- Objecting to tweaks or adherence to the spirit instead of the letter of the rules, when doing so would make the game more enjoyable for others
- Being suspiciously quiet about the rules they might be getting wrong themselves
To give a few examples.
Levels is one of my main issues with D&D, in large part because each level is a big competency jump. If you get a level each session, your character is going to feel like a pile of stats instead of a character after a couple of sessions. And it feels like it mostly comes from playing PC/console games, where the player character(s) often get several massive spikes in power over the course of a single game. But if you go 3+ sessions without levelling up you can end up feeling like you're not progressing (even if you get new items). And 2 sessions/level is not a perfect happy medium either, sometimes earning a level each session makes sense for the story, and other times not levelling up for 3+ sessions can help players engage more with their character.
I personally much prefer point-buy systems where you're rewarded with some points every sessions, letting players either spend them immediately for a small benefit or accumulate to buy something more impactful later on. Of course balancing encounters for systems like this can be harder, especially if the party doesn't keep a similar distribution of points between combat and non-combat abilities.
I have read the DMG cover to cover.
It taught me a lot when it comes to political structures and it's helped with world building at times, but I can honestly say I haven't picked it up since.
It has a lot of valuable info, but I kinda prefer winging most rules that aren't clear. That doesn't work for everyone, but my players are having fun and that's what's important.
Warlock feels like it only has two big choices with a bunch of minor choices. Eldritch Blast or... Eldritch Blast plus a weapon sometimes.
The best guide for learning to GM in my opinion is the book "So You Want To Be A Game Master" by Justin Alexander. It won't turn a first-timer into an expert, but it'll teach you more than pretty much any RPG book has ever taught me in my 20+ years of playing and running tabletops.
I open roll everything, even enemy stealth rolls, i just don't always say what I am rolling for. Occasionally, i roll a d20 look at it and make a hmm sound. If asked what it was for, I just say "we'll see".
14:33 So I disagree with the exact wording of "If you've seen one (warlock), you've seen them all" but imo if you change that to "If you've seen one warlock, you've seen 90% of them" it'd be accurate. The absolute vast majority of warlocks in 5e that I've seen take the invocation that boosts damage and basically just cast hex and eldritch blast all day. Like yes you can roleplay that however you like but mechanically they're all pretty much the same. Every other class, even the ones like sorcerer and wizard that also spam cantrips all day (especially at low levels) can choose different cantrips for BOTH mechanical or rp reasons, for example there is a good case to be made to cast Fire Bolt, Frostbite, Mind Sliver, or Toll the Dead in a given situation. In the vast majority of situations for a Warlock, they can ask the question "Is anything I can do on this turn better than casting Eldritch blast?" and the answer is pretty much always no.
I roll openly. Never any need to fudge rolls. Fudge the Monster's HP or give it a source of healing as needed. The players will never notice. Also, a boss can throw and AOE that kills some of its own minions. I use that too.
I think open rolling is really the worst kind of advise one can give on DMing, no exceptions. As a DM I fudge rolls when they would otherwise break the plot or kill player characters without good reason (good reason = player wants to play another character or does something really stupid).
I with Deficient Master on this:
"If fudging rolls improves the game, then allow the players to fudge rolls."
I see a difference between a rules expert and a rules lawyer. An expert is there to assist with the game. A rules lawyer interrupts the game for their own enjoyment and ruins the game for the other players. In one game where I am a player, the DM will ask me if there's confusion about a rule, but I have never interrupted his session to argue about a ruling.
9:24 Personally, this is something I agree with to the point where I have slightly different terminology. To me, a Rules Lawyer is someone who has a good grasp on the rules and can help when the rules are in question. What becomes a problem is when a person does so to the point where it takes away from the group's ability to have fun, and when it gets to that point I refer to them as a Rules Monkey.
I think for the "Give what the dm wants" a better way is "do things that can be fun for the dm". From the way I've experienced things, dms create the scenario, players play through the and inspire the dm's upcoming scenarios. If you choosing to avoid all the hooks, buttons, and hints you're not helping you dm make fun stories or experiences.
There are qualifiers such as what dms bring up in session 0 (such tone and expectations) that alters how this needs to be handled. But generally if players avoid all the conflicts, traps, hints and the like, why would someone want to waste time prepping things for players that are just gonna be shoved off the table? Why would they want to keep dming?
The rules are guidelines, but those rules/guidelines aren't at the table, your friends are
I feel like players should have their levels paced out by a decent margin. Not only does that make the value of their levels stick, but they're more likely to use their entire tool kit on hand.
I think the guy who said that players should level up once every session said that for all the way to fifth level, in the context of the onednd play test. Those opening levels are the basics of dnd and are just there to get new players comfortable. It would be pretty boring to have experienced players spend multiple sessions in level one.
It's not a seesaw. This was some good advice, by the way.
It's not a seesaw
I roll openly, because one of the first games I played had the DM obviously constantly fudging rolls and it was awful.
My best bit of "bad" advice is, as a DM I require a certain level of complacency from my players. As in I can't spend 20 minutes debating with you why your character should care about the task I set before you. I will do my best to motivate you into raiding the goblin den but please just accept there that's where I have set things up so stop arguing why the official militia aren't keeping the roads safe.
Colville is good evidence that you can run a game just fine even if you don't know the rules.
Was that DM talking about Warlocks in 3.x? 'Cause I'd agree ... But it's been a number of years since you can't just say "D&D" and expect anyone on the internet to not assume 5e.
Wow, never been this early before
Second! This is my peak
What's the book of bad advice? I'm curious/horrified that theres an entire book
Some editions of the DMG are a lot more important than others. (Some, for instance, are VERY specific on how to balance encounters, and some incorporate at least some of the monster manual)
One way my friends put rules lawyering, is there's a difference between being a rules LAWYER, and a rules SHEPARD DOG. Shepard dogs keep things on track. Lawyers ARGUE. And some lawyers manipulate the facts to make their case.
Class X is boring mentality is the result of fixating on meta.
I agree with the first one but instead of Matt Mercer, I'd highly recommend reading the DM section for Into the Odd and Electric Bastionland. For reading that isn't necessarily a ttrpg book, "So you want to be a game master?" by Justin Alexander gives a lot of really cool advice. But at the end of the day I totally agree, the best advice you can give is to just run a game. Other people can provide frameworks that allow you to figure out how your table is going to enjoy a game, but only your table will know what they will enjoy. And sometimes those frameworks are only really useful when you already know what you're looking for, but you don't know how to do it.
6:14 Also its funny as shit that someone is flipping out about Matt Colville removing roll to hit when games have been doing this since 2014. DnD people truly live in a design bubble lmfao
Wait, it’s not a seesaw?
Just a note... Uther the Lightbringer is anything but a Paladin. In fact, I'd say that the Lich King is more good aligned than him. This is a guy who is hungry for power, a coward, and unable to make tough calls... All the while backstabbing and committing treason when the kingdom is in dire need, and wanting to bed the girlfriend of the Crown Prince, forcing the crown prince to become a Death Knight, and trying to forcibly marry the princess, all the while trying to break the will of both the King and Princess.
Because he wanted to rule as King, and saw that he wished to rule with an iron fist.
At most, he's an anti-paladin.
Yo. What?
Uther and Calia never got together. Uther was never into Jaina. Uther and Arthas' father barely share scenes in Warcraft 3. I read all of chronicle too. Nothing about... like ANY of this.
Are you from an alternate universe?
@@CrispysTavern He abandoned his duties in Arthas' time of need. Instead of supporting Arthas during the entire Stratholme incident, he ran away back to Lordaeron to play politics to alienate Arthas from the throne, and his father.
Arthas made a very difficult choice, one that a Paladin had to make. It was extremely time sensitive, and it could have caused the entire realm to turn into the undead, at Stratholme. Making a tough call to wipe out the people wasn't an evil action, it was a shade of grey. There was no time to study or bring forth a cure, waiting too long could give numbers to the Scourge, and it being a well sized army against the Alliance... And Uther playing political games.
It was an ugly situation, and Uther shirked from his duties, and went home to play politics, becoming the power behind the throne, slandering Arthas to his father, after the Culling of Stratholme. This was not an easy choice, but in Warcraft 3, the choice was not easy. Going to convince the King to turn on Arthas, who acted as a Paladin and a Prince in his own right, and to give him more authority over matters, including over matters of the royal family, does imply that there are political interests in Uther.
Uther was more of a politician than a righteous Paladin. Had he decided to support Arthas, then maybe he wouldn't have needed to go find Frostmourne, and turn into the Lich King.
And no, I'm not from an alternate universe. I'm sorry if it seemed rude, but Uther doesn't come across as a holy knight, similar to individuals like Sturm Brightblade or Huma from Dragonlance. Sturm broods, but he always makes the right choice. Huma is one of the greatest Paladin stories out there. I judge Uther by his actions, and it's not exactly behaviour I expect from a Paladin, but it's something that comes across more like a politician.
@@Keiji555 Bro is writing straight fan-fiction.
@@CrispysTavernYeah i dont know what hes talking about either.
Non of that happened in warcraft.
I wanna know what universe hes from too crispy xD
@@CrispysTavern That's rather rude when it comes to your fanbase.
We may disagree with each other, but keep it civil.
Uther's actions by going straight to Arthas' father during the event at Stratholme and turning father can imply some political reasons for it, displaying that he may have a power hungry side.
Uther actually reminds me of both Renard from "The Legend of Huma" and Par-Salian from "Dragonlance". But claim to speak for the light (Although Renard does acknowledge he went evil) but Par-Salian did something similar, by turning the mage Raistlin into a being of evil, and when Raistlin saved the world of Krynn, Par-Salian claimed credit... Even when Par-Salian was pretty much excusing the very evil head of the Black mages, who wished to use necromancy to bring forth an evil goddess into the world, because he was in love with her... When if he simply stripped her of her power, Par-Salian would have avoided almost the end of the world.
Uther is no saint. It was a grey situation, and if he was loyal to the crown, he would have told Arthas to stay back, as he would do the job of taking down the Scourge that day. He fled Stratholme in the lore, when it was a difficult decision for a King to perform.
Hiding dice rolls so you have the opportunity to fudge them is a big red flag for me. Yes, your BBEG can die, yes, your party members can die, yes your adventure can go off the rails but if there is no chance of that happening then why roll the dice in the first place?
Sometimes things need to go in unexpected directions
I think it's a balancing act. If you as a GM can get away with slight "nudges" for the sake of enhancing players' enjoyment of a game, the returns can be worth it. It does require a GM to read the room and be confident in their ability to improv though.
@@MelvinBisonSA Any DM not willing to roll combat dice in front of the players doesn't deserve to have the players roll in front of them. Trust is a two way street
I disagree with the idea that you should never tell your players when you fudge. It messes with the trust between player and DM.
Crispy, I love you, but Warlock is my least favorite class. Every other class I can easily find a creative way to express or flavor them, but Warlock just feels like a creative dead end. My juices just dry up when I look at Warlock because the builds that Warlock encourages just lead to the same ideas: spam the hell out of eldritch blast and only ever use your spells if you absolutely need to.
Im sorry. I just do not like warlocks.
Well now I'm curious about that video complaining about Matt's RPG
It's not a seesaw