Hey all, thank you for all the great comments! Usually, our videos go ignored. We talk about niche topics here on the channel, so thank you for participating. Please stick around and keep up the good work!.
I would change rule 39 to: If you do not tell me of any changes in your spell list. I will only allow the spells from the list you had the day before. It doesn't help with the trust issue, but it might make players use their spells more creatively and also doesn't punish players to hard.
I agree with your final verdict that this group should just disband. I get the feeling that the GM and players are extremely antagonistic to each other. So many of these "rules" seem to be specific callouts for player behaviour (getting intoxicated, cheating, breaking stuff). The GM is just dealing with them in an unhealthy way by making the most extreme threats they can think of.
@@robinmohamedally7587 then the next step is to say "All right, I've made it clear what bothers me- and I'm not having fun. We need to either stop this now, or you guys can find someone else to DM for you"
Rule #1: It's a game, and a game is supposed to be fun for everyone playing. If it isn't, there's a problem. Rule #2: If you're not having fun, and no one else cares- stop playing the game, go play with someone else. Rule #3: Your D&D group is not your therapy group, no one is likely equipped to be your therapist and even more likely- they didn't sign on for that. Rule #4: Don't be a coward, talk to people directly if you have an issue. You know, like an adult. Rule #5: Don't poop in anyone else's dice bag.
The GM definitely had one or more really difficult players. As a 40+ year GM I have had players that triggered these responses with me. In particular, the player that moves, then realizes that someone that moved later 'ruined' his action and wanted a redo. For many of the others, it is a culmination of many sessions of annoying players. Rule 37 is a situation where a player expects special treatment because he or she is is a friend of the GM.
It's worth noting that before the post was deleted, the OP of the post stated that the 44 rules were created by their DM who had been on *hiatus* and that they created the rules after returning from hiatus, and funnily enough, many people who commented on the original post agreed that these 44 rules in the end was just a VERY angry and spiteful 'break-up' or 'I quit' letter, as all of the rules are all *incredibly* specific, and way too specific for the DM to be played as the 'bad guy' In fact, the OP never specified *why* their DM in question went on Hiatus in the first place, with how some of these rules were worded, some of the commentors noted how it seemed as if the DM had been dealing with these issues from their players for a long time and never did anything about it, as it would explain not only why the 44 rules were worded with such vitriol and utter spite, but it explains WHY the DM went onto their hiatus in the first place. The DM didn't do anything about it, until it got too much for them and resulted in their hiatus, if anything the DM should've just gotten a new group at that point, because it was obvious that the DM just _didn't_ match with their players
yeah i feel like a lot of people reviewing these rules are missing the context of the DM being antagonized and exploited by the OP & their gang of goblins for god knows how long to the point where the DM quit, and only decided run again under the condition that they, that particular group, follows these rules. plus the post wasn't made by the dm, but rather the player who was found out to not be an exact reliable narrator, so a lot of the rules were probably bastardised to make DM sound worse.
@@gramfero Supposedly, other people who saw the original post apparently knew of another post that the OP had made making fun of the DM in question, but so far I haven't really seen any proof of this supposed second post. All we know is that the OP who posted the rules on Reddit had posted them in an entirely different subreddit as well possibly to try and gain some form of clout and pity, thinking that people would pick OP's side over their DM's. The fact that OP deleted the post just goes to show how wrong that OP was about it
@@Marblesoda821 from what I've gathered, OP didn't just delete the post, but the account as well, so you probably won't be able to find the second post maybe with waybackmachine
Pretty much, we tried to include some context, but it is hard to get the full story. The internet moves fast. If you have a citation or something for what you've said here, I hope it serves as a good source for discussions on this topic in the future.
I'll probably add more to this after actually watching the video. This entire subject has greatly diminished any amount of respect I held for pretty much any person I've seen who posted a video on it. It was clear from the start that the list of rules was NOT a list of rules some crazy guy thought every table needed to follow. It wasn't someone trying to be the Martin Luther of TTRPGs posting his 44 Thesis on the front page of the internet. Rather, it was in response to a specific group of players. There were too many "rules" with specific grievances for it to be anything else. Yet every RUclipsr seemed to be treating it like the rules were for everyone, instead of as a response to a very specific table. And apparently further info confirmed that this was exactly the case. The rules were essentially a list of demands if a group the DM had already left wanted him back. I've only just started your video though, and at least so far it seems a more reasonable take than most any I've seen. Edit: So, after watching... yeah, you two were making far too many assumptions here. This wasn't a group that needed to disband. It was a group that had. In that context, there is a very wide range of less diplomatic phrasing that, while perhaps not the wisest, is understandable. That said, I appreciated the attempt at fairness and enjoyed the atmosphere of your channel. Including the neurodiversity perspective stuff. (Autistic myself and have a good number of friends with ASD and/or ADHD.) Looking forward to watching more of your stuff.
if you felt like this list of "rules" was more like a legal document, that's because it was. it was a list of demands that had to be met if _that_ group wanted to play with that DM again.
This is assuming that these are the actual rules they sent, and not re-worded by a player that was salty that their personal entertainer set some mostly reasonable ground rules. I haven't tightly followed it because I don't care much for drama, but I find "entitled player loses their DM and tries to spin it for karma" just as, if nor more convincing of a scenario as "everyone in this scenario is just horrible." Though if proof this is the actual original message has been produced, I'd of course accept the latter. I prefer optimistic positions when possible
First video of yours I’ve seen! When I looked at the views and subs I was shocked! I would’ve thought you guys had at least a few tens of thousands of subs!
I hope to one day. I produce videos every week. My goal is to bring academic discussions of TTRPGs and RPGs into the public sphere. Spread the word, I don't bother with social media. I'm too busy living life XD.
This ABSOLUTELY sounds like a DM AT WORK, so he HAS to DM. And he made his own stupid rule book because he is tired of DMing. I would bet on it at this point
To be honest, there are some rules that you put into "reasonable" that are meh (especially from a disability pov) One rule in particular is the "if you complain about the music, make your own, whole playlist" one I, for example, am very sensitive towards music and sounds, in particular high pitched music (that goes over a long time) If my DM used such a song/music for longer than a minute, I'd really struggle I guess it depends on why the music choice is criticized, but the situation I mentioned would be reasonable criticism
yeah, but judging by these other players' actions in this list, it was far more likely, "your music sucks, bruh, lol", than anything to do with autism or sensitivity
I don't think it's ableist to demand to act out persuasion checks. Mind the fact that he isn't asking for them to act it out well. He's simply asking to make an attempt. I would also consider that it's a rule made for a specific group, not in general, and with what we know about the group, they don't seem like the kind of people who are too awkward to roleplay. But they do seem like the kind of people who are too lazy to bother roleplaying. "I'm no longer being nice" is not adversarial DMing. The DM isn't supposed to be nice, the DM is supposed to deliver an interesting adventure, and if it means that the player characters should struggle, then it's the DM's job to make them struggle. The rule is simply stating that the DM will keep doing so, and that him being punishing in-game should is separate from his real-life relationship with his friends. "When we play, I'm not your friend" simply means "don't expect in-game favours because we're friends in real life". It's a little rude, but it's necessary for the game to function.
I don't care what the DM went through: These rules would make any campaign miserable. Cry for help or not, some of the rules just seem cruel for the sake of being cruel, as if the DM wanted people at this point to quit and/or be dismissed. Some clarity by the way: Emergencies being dismissed, actual emergencies:
I had to quit an campaign session because I literally got news one of my dearest friends in the world committed suicide: I classified that as an emergency, and the DM I played with didn't agree it was... I was permanently exumed from his group... When I told the players in his group why I had to quit, and that "now isn't really the best time to bring that up", the ire of the players aimed at me, refocused on the DM. Basically, the developer of SJSM, scorned my friend so hard, and got my friend harassed so much, that my friend took a dive... I texted the group what had just happened, my entire world was flipped upside down in a second... I explained how it was an emergency, I spent weeks reminiscing and being just outright miserable, cursing Akuma Kira's name (The dev of SJSM) as a murderer, I was in a lot of distress... When asked "Why did I leave the game?" since the private message was between me and the dungeon master: I explained my case, copy pasting our message history for good measure... The fire in the players eyes turned to the dungeon master, pointing fists and fingers and shouting out with no more reason for concern or assumptions... That made my day, seeing players who shunned me become friends with me, and what was essentially an tyrant getting dethroned...
I'm pretty sure they did want the party to quit. These rules were basically an ultimatum "these are my rules if you wanna play with me, or leave me alone. I'm done with y'all's crap."
@@DandDisability I can't really blame him for quitting. He was trying to save no one but himself whilst bridges were burning, and he was the one with the lighter.
Hey all, thank you for all the great comments! Usually, our videos go ignored. We talk about niche topics here on the channel, so thank you for participating. Please stick around and keep up the good work!.
I would change rule 39 to: If you do not tell me of any changes in your spell list. I will only allow the spells from the list you had the day before.
It doesn't help with the trust issue, but it might make players use their spells more creatively and also doesn't punish players to hard.
Ableistic is the most southern way of saying it, and I absolutely love it.
I agree with your final verdict that this group should just disband. I get the feeling that the GM and players are extremely antagonistic to each other. So many of these "rules" seem to be specific callouts for player behaviour (getting intoxicated, cheating, breaking stuff). The GM is just dealing with them in an unhealthy way by making the most extreme threats they can think of.
Remember when people could be adults and tell someone discretely, privately- but to their face- that they're doing something that's a problem?
I expect the GM told the players on many occasions that the rules are and they ignored the rules.
@@elijahherstal776 not sure he didn't already try that.
@@robinmohamedally7587 then the next step is to say "All right, I've made it clear what bothers me- and I'm not having fun. We need to either stop this now, or you guys can find someone else to DM for you"
Rule #1: It's a game, and a game is supposed to be fun for everyone playing. If it isn't, there's a problem.
Rule #2: If you're not having fun, and no one else cares- stop playing the game, go play with someone else.
Rule #3: Your D&D group is not your therapy group, no one is likely equipped to be your therapist and even more likely- they didn't sign on for that.
Rule #4: Don't be a coward, talk to people directly if you have an issue. You know, like an adult.
Rule #5: Don't poop in anyone else's dice bag.
The GM definitely had one or more really difficult players. As a 40+ year GM I have had players that triggered these responses with me. In particular, the player that moves, then realizes that someone that moved later 'ruined' his action and wanted a redo. For many of the others, it is a culmination of many sessions of annoying players.
Rule 37 is a situation where a player expects special treatment because he or she is is a friend of the GM.
It's worth noting that before the post was deleted, the OP of the post stated that the 44 rules were created by their DM who had been on *hiatus* and that they created the rules after returning from hiatus, and funnily enough, many people who commented on the original post agreed that these 44 rules in the end was just a VERY angry and spiteful 'break-up' or 'I quit' letter, as all of the rules are all *incredibly* specific, and way too specific for the DM to be played as the 'bad guy'
In fact, the OP never specified *why* their DM in question went on Hiatus in the first place, with how some of these rules were worded, some of the commentors noted how it seemed as if the DM had been dealing with these issues from their players for a long time and never did anything about it, as it would explain not only why the 44 rules were worded with such vitriol and utter spite, but it explains WHY the DM went onto their hiatus in the first place. The DM didn't do anything about it, until it got too much for them and resulted in their hiatus, if anything the DM should've just gotten a new group at that point, because it was obvious that the DM just _didn't_ match with their players
yeah i feel like a lot of people reviewing these rules are missing the context of the DM being antagonized and exploited by the OP & their gang of goblins for god knows how long to the point where the DM quit, and only decided run again under the condition that they, that particular group, follows these rules.
plus the post wasn't made by the dm, but rather the player who was found out to not be an exact reliable narrator, so a lot of the rules were probably bastardised to make DM sound worse.
@@gramfero Supposedly, other people who saw the original post apparently knew of another post that the OP had made making fun of the DM in question, but so far I haven't really seen any proof of this supposed second post. All we know is that the OP who posted the rules on Reddit had posted them in an entirely different subreddit as well possibly to try and gain some form of clout and pity, thinking that people would pick OP's side over their DM's. The fact that OP deleted the post just goes to show how wrong that OP was about it
@@Marblesoda821 from what I've gathered, OP didn't just delete the post, but the account as well, so you probably won't be able to find the second post
maybe with waybackmachine
Pretty much, we tried to include some context, but it is hard to get the full story. The internet moves fast. If you have a citation or something for what you've said here, I hope it serves as a good source for discussions on this topic in the future.
I'll probably add more to this after actually watching the video. This entire subject has greatly diminished any amount of respect I held for pretty much any person I've seen who posted a video on it. It was clear from the start that the list of rules was NOT a list of rules some crazy guy thought every table needed to follow. It wasn't someone trying to be the Martin Luther of TTRPGs posting his 44 Thesis on the front page of the internet. Rather, it was in response to a specific group of players. There were too many "rules" with specific grievances for it to be anything else. Yet every RUclipsr seemed to be treating it like the rules were for everyone, instead of as a response to a very specific table. And apparently further info confirmed that this was exactly the case. The rules were essentially a list of demands if a group the DM had already left wanted him back.
I've only just started your video though, and at least so far it seems a more reasonable take than most any I've seen.
Edit: So, after watching... yeah, you two were making far too many assumptions here. This wasn't a group that needed to disband. It was a group that had. In that context, there is a very wide range of less diplomatic phrasing that, while perhaps not the wisest, is understandable. That said, I appreciated the attempt at fairness and enjoyed the atmosphere of your channel. Including the neurodiversity perspective stuff. (Autistic myself and have a good number of friends with ASD and/or ADHD.) Looking forward to watching more of your stuff.
Almost one minute per rule. Brilliant
We tried so hard XD.
if you felt like this list of "rules" was more like a legal document, that's because it was. it was a list of demands that had to be met if _that_ group wanted to play with that DM again.
And that Dm was a huge jerk about it.
This is assuming that these are the actual rules they sent, and not re-worded by a player that was salty that their personal entertainer set some mostly reasonable ground rules. I haven't tightly followed it because I don't care much for drama, but I find "entitled player loses their DM and tries to spin it for karma" just as, if nor more convincing of a scenario as "everyone in this scenario is just horrible."
Though if proof this is the actual original message has been produced, I'd of course accept the latter. I prefer optimistic positions when possible
Honestly this video was one of the most reasonable and nuanced takes I’ve seen for this rule list so far.
Well done gents
Just wait until you see this week...
First video of yours I’ve seen! When I looked at the views and subs I was shocked! I would’ve thought you guys had at least a few tens of thousands of subs!
I hope to one day. I produce videos every week. My goal is to bring academic discussions of TTRPGs and RPGs into the public sphere. Spread the word, I don't bother with social media. I'm too busy living life XD.
@@DandDisability Trust me, you have a skill that is going to grow ;) great content
This ABSOLUTELY sounds like a DM AT WORK, so he HAS to DM.
And he made his own stupid rule book because he is tired of DMing.
I would bet on it at this point
I think when you put the game above the people at the table, that's when things go wrong.
Also, punishing a player in game is punishing everyone.
Genau. Exactly.
To be honest, there are some rules that you put into "reasonable" that are meh (especially from a disability pov)
One rule in particular is the "if you complain about the music, make your own, whole playlist" one
I, for example, am very sensitive towards music and sounds, in particular high pitched music (that goes over a long time)
If my DM used such a song/music for longer than a minute, I'd really struggle
I guess it depends on why the music choice is criticized, but the situation I mentioned would be reasonable criticism
yeah, but judging by these other players' actions in this list, it was far more likely, "your music sucks, bruh, lol", than anything to do with autism or sensitivity
I don't think it's ableist to demand to act out persuasion checks. Mind the fact that he isn't asking for them to act it out well. He's simply asking to make an attempt.
I would also consider that it's a rule made for a specific group, not in general, and with what we know about the group, they don't seem like the kind of people who are too awkward to roleplay. But they do seem like the kind of people who are too lazy to bother roleplaying.
"I'm no longer being nice" is not adversarial DMing. The DM isn't supposed to be nice, the DM is supposed to deliver an interesting adventure, and if it means that the player characters should struggle, then it's the DM's job to make them struggle. The rule is simply stating that the DM will keep doing so, and that him being punishing in-game should is separate from his real-life relationship with his friends. "When we play, I'm not your friend" simply means "don't expect in-game favours because we're friends in real life". It's a little rude, but it's necessary for the game to function.
I don't care what the DM went through: These rules would make any campaign miserable. Cry for help or not, some of the rules just seem cruel for the sake of being cruel, as if the DM wanted people at this point to quit and/or be dismissed.
Some clarity by the way: Emergencies being dismissed, actual emergencies:
I had to quit an campaign session because I literally got news one of my dearest friends in the world committed suicide: I classified that as an emergency, and the DM I played with didn't agree it was... I was permanently exumed from his group... When I told the players in his group why I had to quit, and that "now isn't really the best time to bring that up", the ire of the players aimed at me, refocused on the DM. Basically, the developer of SJSM, scorned my friend so hard, and got my friend harassed so much, that my friend took a dive... I texted the group what had just happened, my entire world was flipped upside down in a second... I explained how it was an emergency, I spent weeks reminiscing and being just outright miserable, cursing Akuma Kira's name (The dev of SJSM) as a murderer, I was in a lot of distress... When asked "Why did I leave the game?" since the private message was between me and the dungeon master: I explained my case, copy pasting our message history for good measure... The fire in the players eyes turned to the dungeon master, pointing fists and fingers and shouting out with no more reason for concern or assumptions...
That made my day, seeing players who shunned me become friends with me, and what was essentially an tyrant getting dethroned...
I'm pretty sure they did want the party to quit. These rules were basically an ultimatum "these are my rules if you wanna play with me, or leave me alone. I'm done with y'all's crap."
The DM quit after posting the rules, yeah.
@@DandDisability I can't really blame him for quitting. He was trying to save no one but himself whilst bridges were burning, and he was the one with the lighter.
@@DandDisability before posting the rule, actually. It's the player who posted it, who framed it as a "hiatus"
@@Angel-Dust-The-Prostitute lol, that's pure and utter BS. read the list again. but this time, take your ADD meds so you can focus.
Let's see how many views this monster gets. I bet the editing sucked.