Another good example of Matt Mercer displaying this behavior is in the Christmas oneshot that CR did a few years back. Liam was in the DM seat and asked Matt for help on a ruling, to his face. Matt leans back and says "It's your game, your decision" and only after Liam doubles down and asks again does he offer his opinion. I have a feeling that Matt is acutely aware of his role in the group as *The DM* and that his words are going to have a lot of weight, so he holds back as much as possible.
We saw the same thing from Chris Perkins when he was a guest player in Campaign One of CR. There were a couple of points during the battle with Umbrasyl that were very edge case with regards to the rules, and he simply sat there, looked down at his character sheet and let Matt run his game. Chris even checked with Matt on his own turns where he was reasonably stretching one of the rules. I think for me, that was one of the most informative cases of only play your character and let the DM run their game. At that time, with the exception of Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford, Chris was the most influential person as to what it meant to be D&D in 5E, so if he avoided insinuating himself, then we certainly should.
When I clicked on this video, I thought it was going to be about playing Lawful Good characters, but I needed this lesson about being a Lawful Good player more. Thank you.
I'm a DM and when my players point out rules I missed I'm so happy. Especially when they have the integrity to deal with the bad ones. On the other side, I tend to do my best to let them know when they're not using their characters optimally. For example, reminding strength based PCs that they can use the finesse magic items too.
You can also just ask the DM instead of declaring anything. Then it's in their court. For example, with the character who fell you could just ask "Is that fall far enough to cause damage?" The DM can respond however they want.
I’ve done this before, too - it depends on the DM and the campaign, but I think a good compromise FOR ME (others may feel differently) would be to only do so for my character, not for everyone else’s. Otherwise I find it’s just another way for me to do the same thing in a different way.
@Vickiraytive Games I mean at that point it's about intention right? If you're manipulating the situation to question other people's moves then sure, but that's a whole other bag of cats. If I've seen a character jump down into a hole and they seemed fine, but it's far enough it might be fall damage and I'm looking at that pit and making plans to knock somebody in it, or maybe try to jump over it, I can just assume that it's fine, or that they have some deal that means they don't take fall damage, or I can just ask the DM. The other thing is yeah, I can wait until I'm about to take my action to get the same information, but then I'm gonna have to come up with another plan on my turn. If your intention when asking questions is to somehow screw over other players then yeah that's some questionable priorities, but if there's a question about rules you can ask it even if it doesn't relate just to your character in that moment. It's just information gathering. There's other contexts, like a character casting a spell in a way that's not RAW or whatever, or using a class ability "wrong" that have nothing to do with you, but there's plenty of contexts where something someone is doing might need clarification, and you can just ask the DM what's going on. You asking a question is different from asserting a rule, and isn't pushing the DM any which way, they can still rule things however they want and you'll be on the same page. In my opinion, clarity is key to keeping things working smoothly at the table.
this is good for things enforced before or early play with the DM. if it is the first time the rule comes up or if 99 times it came up and the 100 is diffent Ideal! but if it is a rule that might have been diffent at diffent times fall damage is a good one as DM might enforce diffently at diffent points in the game. in the middle of complexes battle I will not kill a player by fall damage is reasonable if you think it though. That may not be true over all but ooops you dead because you fell 10 feet is week for story
@@katrinapoorman987 Depends on the scenario. Re: Fall damage, I once had that exact scenario happen to my barbarian. I was *literally* carrying my party members on my shoulders as we fled a powerful enemy, and tried to land a 10 foot jump, and failed and took enough damage I was dying. The monster was coming, and my party was panicking as they weren't big or strong enough to move me, and spell slots were low so healing was probably going to just result in me dying when the thing caught up anyways. It was really scary! One of them decided to draw the creature away, bravely risking himself to give the others time to drag me to safety. It was really tense, and a great character moment (even if getting knocked out by a fall I was sure was safe was a little annoying lol). So things are what you make of them. Though there are plenty of scenarios where it might just be severely anticlimactic, lol.
I always respect someone who can not only learn from their mistakes, but genuinely admit them To get on the internet &say "yes, I WAS the asshole, and here's how I'm fixing it," and do that unprompted? Yeah man, respect. I don't have anything to contribute to the matter at hand, but that bore saying.
@@SupergeekMike Thank you! tbh, I'm in a pretty bad time, and the only thing that's helping is the random moments of decency... just to remind me that it ain't all like this. So yeah. The subject wasn't one for me, but the video still meant a lot.
going on a session 0 tomorrow for the first time in a while as a non DM, and seeing this was a good reminder since i've been in the rules lawyering camp for a while.
This video definitely gets me to pat on my own shoulder for subscribing man. This is a POV I've never witnessed, as usually I've been a DM. As a player I struggled many times to not "challenge" DM's agency even without willing to do so, but this tip reminded me of when a friend of mine, running his first ever campaign as a DM, told me "please, trust me as a DM, just enjoy" so I shutted the hell up about stuff that was secondary to the enjoyment of what was happening at the table. At the end I was misfocusing my role at the table, in doing so I was putting useless pressure above his shoulder and wasting time for everyone at the table. So yeah, N°1 rule should be "Have Fun" I think xD
This is something I've also struggled with over the years. Luckily, I learned my lesson on this a couple of years into playing dnd because my friends were kind enough to tell me to shut the hell up. I still do bring up the rules, but now it's only when it's something that affects my character or if my DM asks me about the rules. As my DM once said "Lemon is a tattle tale, but there's no one he tattles on more than himself." I like hard and deadly games, so I try to enforce the rules as much as I can for myself because 5e is pretty forgiving. A lot of people aren't like me however, and don't like those kinds of games.
I feel this on a personal level as I have similar tendencies on the occasion I get to be a player. And I think its a really fine line because having a "rules lawyer" who knows most of the rules really well can be very beneficial, as long as they aren't a dingus about it. These players can save a lot of time and keep the session flowing if there's ever a bit of confusion or disagreement over how a specific rule works instead of having to spend 5 minutes looking it up. But your end point about how matt does it is so spot on. Rules lawyer the heck out of yourself if that's your style and offer your understanding of the rules when asked but don't just butt in on other people playing their characters if you aren't the dm. Great video as always!
I always ask my GMs whether or not I would be welcomed to rules-lawyer. Sometimes, they encourage it because they're new GMs. Sometimes they don't want that. When they do, I still let it be a judgement call, because I love the rules but I also know it's not always a good time to interrupt a moment with the rules. Of course, it's _perfectly fair_ to also try arguing for a rule that isn't being adhered to _if it effects your character._ If it doesn't effect you, don't worry about it. If it does, and you want others to learn from your example, call it out. The reason arguing for the rules you know is a good thing, is because it informs you on how to approach your involvement in the game. The more you know, and know will matter, the better armed you are to play the game in a fun, effective, and efficient way.
Really liked to hear someone else struggling with this. This is something I have recently come to recognize about myself since I started as a player in a new campaign with people I didnt know before. I am taking steps to avoid it but it can be hard to beat back that initial impulse to correct a rule.
As a new player this video really speaks to me Mike. c: I'm usually kinda passive, (we're at session 1 so far!) but I really want to assert myself more, but I guess this will come in time.
I've learned, through various sources, that being lawful good isn't so much following the rules to the T--that's more Lawful Neutral/Evil--,it's more so setting the best example possible. Ironically the Character Morag from Xenoblade Chronicles 2 really drove this home for me. If I make a rules call out, it's mostly because I want clarification myself, but I understand that can be annoying. It's definitely a balancing act.
I had to learn to not let my idea of how to play get in the way of other people playing how they want to play, too. I think it started as optimization "suggestions", but then I started loving character ideas from other mediums(comics, novels, TV, anime, etc.) and some maybe don't fit in D&D optimally, so I end up playing sub-optimal characters that I love. And it totally changed my mind on everything. I am still available to help people if they want it, but I don't try and shove my opinions down people's ear throats anymore.
On the venn diagram among myself and my two other forever dm friends, you sit squarely in the middle of our styles. That you even look like a fusion of the 3 of us just makes it amusing too. This is a great lesson, thank you for sharing.
I don't mind when my players correct me (my head is still stuck in 3.5 land for some reason - even though I've been playing 5e for longer at this point lol), but they're usually respectful enough to drop something if I decide I actually want to rule "uniquely". That strikes a good balance for me, because I prefer everyone to know the rules of the world and have those rules enforced predictably (even when I'm not capable of it), but I can see how it would be a problem at some tables. I remember one person I played with who simply would not let anything go, even after direct confrontation with the DM over house rules we'd been using for months before they joined - definitely set a mood at the table. I vowed never to be that player after that. Now, as a player, I only speak up if it concerns me, and if it seems like an accidental advantage or disadvantage on some extreme scale has been given.
Managing your own circus is a good rule for if you play at a lot of different tables, but at our table, we like to make sure as many rules are followed as possible. It's hard for any one person to keep track of all the rules. If someone remembers a rule that should come up in a scenario, they've taken pressure off the DM. If the DM hears said rule and disagrees or rules that they won't be doing that, then we know it won't be an issue in the future, that way it's fair and the 'D&D Laws of Physics" remain consistent.
I have caught myself recently trying to "help the DM out" but reminding them of rules or things. And when the game is over, I always feel lousy because it isn't my game to run and maybe there was a reason the DM overlooked something. And even if there wasn't, it wasn't a game breaking omission. So I will also do my best to put the rule you mentioned in your video first before I try to be an unsolicited DM helper. Thanks!
I am a DM with a player like the one you described. I have to say that I am in no way annoyed by her. She pitches in to note when something rule-wise was forgotten - both wehen it is to her benefit and when it is to her detriment. I am really glad to have her in my group. It's not like she is arguing when I am intentionally doing something against RAW as a stated homebrew rule. It's only when a rule was unintentionally ignored or forgotten. I also don't feel insulted or embarrassed when it happens. I'm human and no DM can be expected to remember every rule or track every condition of every monster every time. So, as a DM who has played with a player you called problematic, I can honestly say that I don't see the problem here. (Unless there is some nuance to the behaviour that my player does not have that I kind of missed.)
It depends entirely on the DM’s wishes, and how the other players feel. If it’s not a problem at your table, then you’re all good! I can just say that this wasn’t the case at my table, which is why I needed to change my behavior.
Thank you for uploading this. Its definitely something that comes up most tables, putting strain on all witnessing, but doesnt get addressed often enough. Particularly from this viewpoint with this kindness. Well done, and thank you.
I think I was lucky for the fact that, most of my tabletop-playing existence, I have been an *idiot*. And I mean that genuinely without self-hate, I just didn't really understand the rules that well, but have always been enthusiastic to roleplay and hit goblins with friends, even if I need to ask the DM every time what a "save" means, or "what do i roll for insight?" So as I moved from one system to another, I never got a good enough grasp on the rules to become a Lawyer. Now, I'm old enough to have the patience to learn rules and systems, and even knowing how most of 5E works, I am still not a Lawyer, because I've had enough experiencing observing others try to DM from the player's seat. Respect your DM's style, let them decide how hard or soft their rulings are, even if they're occasionally inconsistent.
It's one of the curses of socially awkward groups and, well, culture in general. I think it's important, both as people and as groups that play together, to acknowledge that we can't read minds. It's **incredibly** difficult to self-reflect, analyse your own actions, and realize after the fact that "Hey, I think other people weren't too happy with this." I think the reason it might have taken Mike so long to realize is partly because of that. There's this weird stigma around giving people feedback or, gasp, being confrontational if they do something you don't like. That social interaction is difficult, awkward, and unpleasant, so no one wants to do it! I know that was a big obstacle for me, it wasn't until I started playing sports and getting more direct feedback from people that I started paying attention to how I interacted and tried to push my rules/views onto others. Big learning curves!
This is something I struggled with for a while, but I believe I have made a turn for the better as of recent, usually only arguing in favor of the rules specifically to the players advantage. I learned as much as I did about the base rules because when I had nothing to do, sometimes I'd literally just make a new character and pin it on my corkboard I have next to my desk. So after about a year or so, I had become so familiar with the rules of basic class features and some subclasses that I was able to help others who were playing classes I played in the past, like when a new barbarian player failed a dex save but forgot to roll with advantage because of Danger Sense. Or when a rogue player was trying to remember if Sneak Attack applied in a given situation or that they had Evasion and should still only take half damage from a failed dex save. Thankfully I don't think I remember (as far as recent memory is concerned) of me arguing in favor of a ruling that was against the players, so I think I'm starting to get better at that
While I haven't struggled with this issue very much (I'm usually fine about fudging/shrugging off rules as needed), this was interesting to hear about. Thank you for continuing to cover topics for players and DMs in a wide range of concerns.
This reminds me when I running a lich in a fight and a player (who is also a DM) reminded me about legendary actions--probably because I haven't run legendary monsters in a while. Weirdly it got his character killed. He was cool about it, but the other players had a lot of fun rubbing it in that he reminded me of that rule.
I mostly play on line these days, and I’ve found that shooting a private message to the DM (we use discord) can strike a good middle ground. It doesn’t disrupt play or put pressure on the DM to do anything by “calling them out” and puts the power in their hands to make the change if it was a genuine oversight or something they want to prioritize
Watching a lot of Mike's videos out of order, and it's odd that this video came out before his video about players reacting poorly to their character dying, because that video felt like it was really missing the perspective that the player just....really liked that character and are upset they're gone, and don't want to play another (and in the instances this was brought up, it was tied to other reasons like newcomers who aren't experienced or someone just feeling the story was powerful enough.) Where in this video Mike addresses that as a person that typically DM's, he doesn't have the same attachment to characters that typical players may.
As a DM and as a player, I genuinely want to follow the rules. 99% of the times that I don't follow the rules are times when I just forgot the rule, or, more specifically, I forgot that the situation called for a rule (like your story about forgetting to roll falling damage). So, when I'm DM'ing, and a player reminds me that I forgot something, I'm not annoyed. I super appreciate it. Because I would've applied the rule if I'd remembered it. I just forgot. So I generally wouldn't mind if you raised your hand and said "Teacher, teacher. You forgot to assign homework." But I see the point about how other players might be annoyed. So, I think it REALLY depends on what rule you're trying to call out. Like... very specifically. Think about it -- do you think it's right to call out a rule correction in these situations: 1) The DM forgot to roll a Concentration check for a monster. 2) The DM forgot to call for a Concentration check for a PC. 3) The DM forgot that certain terrain was difficult terrain, and moved a monster too far. 4) The DM and a player forgot that certain terrain was difficult terrain, and the PC moved too far. 5) The DM forgot to roll to recharge the dragon's breath weapon on the dragon's turn. 6) The DM and players forgot that there's no light in this room, and some PCs don't have darkvision. 7) The DM forgot that a monster is frightened and should have disadvantage. 8) The DM called for an Acrobatics check when it should've been Athletics. 9) The DM called for an Investigation check when it should've been Perception. 10) The DM accidentally skipped a monster in the initiative order. 11) The DM and player forgot that this player's shortbow attack is outside the normal range for shortbows, so it should have disadvantage. I think we begin to see that things like #1 and #10 are the kind of things a DM might really appreciate players' help with. And things like #8 and #9 would be super annoying for a player to call out. And things like #4 are grey enough that people might disagree about whether it's right to call it out. So I'm not sure if I agree with the advice to just shut up and never call out rules that don't directly affect yourself. I appreciate my players calling out certain things.
These are good examples, and I also agree with which ones are grey areas. But yeah, concentration seems like the #1 offender of tracking so much that you just forget. I've never seen/felt DM struggle when concentration is called out
I feel this - Especially since I play a lot of board games and GMless systems where it's kind of on everyone to remind each other of rules oversights. I just tell myself that the GM's got a houserule, deliberately or otherwise, and bite my tongue when it happens.
Great video, Mike. Love your takes and perspectives and how you land them. Also, i would love to hear your opinion about the vecna's hand steal. I've seen strong opinions on both sides.
I’ll get there at some point! Although I can tell you my general feeling is that Joe has a different play style than the rest of the cast and that could’ve caused some friction in that moment, but instead it manifested into one of the best heel turns ever, something that really only worked because it was the end of the campaign.
Also, I think if it had actually bothered anybody in the cast, somebody would’ve asked if they had a chance to react, but in addition to being stunned, they were all pretty entertained :)
This is a really timely video for me. I just typed and then deleted a message to our DM about two potential rules issues with a barbarian in our party. I have been struggling with whether or not to say something since our last session, and at this point, I think a I will go the “LG player” route and not say anything… for now. I do feel that there comes a time when rules abuse may disrupt play balance and actually can diminish the fun on the table. The DM can sometimes feel like he can’t do enough to challenge one player, maybe not even realizing that the player is “missing” a rule, and set encounter difficulties higher to compensate, thereafter diminishing the potential contributions of the other characters. On another note, though, as a player, I actually want someone to point out if I’m missing a rule or using an ability wrong, so I can play properly Then again, I’m the type of player who usually asks “can I do this” with an ability, instead of saying “I do this”, and promote the DM to make a ruling for a novel use of a spell/ability.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head - folks can absolutely opt into being reminded of rules, but I don’t want to keep being the person who offers unsolicited advice like I have so often. I’m so glad it helped you!
Wow, I super needed this video. I am also a lawful good person (I once felt bad for not going to the basement during a tornado drill), and I know I am always pointing out things to my DM. Not rules, necessarily, but things being realistic. That’s what I care about in a story… but it’s not what everyone else cares about. And I’m watching Escape from the Bloodkeep too! Matt is such a generous player; you can tell he would never dream of correcting another DM unless asked.
I've lately been grappling with the concept of lawful good in the real world. I'm becoming convinced it is an oxymoron. Truly good people break rules that are evil or hindering their path to actually doing good. Also no set of rules and especially no country's laws are made up of only good rules with always good outcomes.
Here no matter what the title and I always have a good time. Thanks for making content, it lightens the load of the day a lot. I appreciate all the effort you put in for us 💚 thx
(slightly off-topic, but) whenever anybody thinks lawful good characters in dnd its always someone who always follows local societal laws and trusts authorities, assuming them to be always good. which of course is always going to be a political issue which is why its so controversial. but to how i see it, if we view the vertical good-to-evil axis as sense of self-preservation, and the horizontal lawful-to-chaotic axis as direct-to-sporadic approach, then lawful good would be more like a disciplined good-doer. it measures intent and one's inner-workings, not government shenanigans
I'm a very blessed player with two normally-consistent games a week, with friends I have played games with for many years now. I think, if I were with a group I wasn't as close with, I'd follow the same rules you laid out here (call myself and nobody else out). But with my friends...I'll speak up if the DM, who has to track a million things, forgets one thing, regardless of whether it's beneficial or detrimental. For me, when we win without hand-waving bad situations away, that's when the story is at its greatest. Honestly though, I still have this fear, where I want to speak up because I think everyone else would me to speak up, but I don't want to tread on anybody's toes, or be that "rules lawyer" who bogs the game down. Generally what I'll try to do, is apologetically speak up if I think somebody is forgetting something. I don't want them to suffer because I remembered something, but I really do feel like I'll be doing a disservice to everybody if I don't say anything. I guess in my mind, if I as a player am allowed to be a monk and force the DM to make a thousand constitution saving throws where even one invalidates an enemy (and, if I stun them early, ALSO dodge so that I'll probably never get hit), then the DM's enemies should also be allowed to get use out of things like poisoning the rogue so it is a LOT harder for him to sneak attack.
I think Sam from CR is really good at this. He always enforces the rules for himself but doesn't jump in like Tal or Liam can do when it concerns other players
Thanks for the vid. As a rules lawyer being a bit confused about dm rulings, this was a good reminder that I don’t need to point out every little thing that is inaccurate to the rules
Lol it’s always up to DM preference :) I just don’t always know/respect the boundaries when I’m playing so I had to implement this rule for my own good and for the good of my groups
This is absolutely something I think should be discussed at session 0. I tell all my players that I strive to follow all the rules in the PHB, but I may forget some from time to time and encourage the players to let me know at the table if I'm missing a rule. The characters are living in a real world to them, and the rule of gravity applies even if I as the DM forget to apply it. The players know this going into it that their characters are subject to all the rules, good and bad, of the system. I encourage players to remind me if I'm forgetting a rule even if it does not relate to their character. No one has ever had a problem with that. But also I assume it's because we talked about it at session 0 and they know to expect it and it's not coming from out of the blue.
Difference between being a LAWFUL good player as opposed to a lawful GOOD player. I struggle with the same stuff. Glad to see you got some wisdom for me :)
I appreciate this video so much. I’m quite similar - and it’s always from a perspective of trying to “help.” But you’re exactly right with this video. Very well done!!
Lawful Good people - yes, characters included - prioritize the "Good" in "Lawful Good," while adhering to laws that benefit (or at least don't harm as much as possible) others, and maybe ignoring or fighting against laws that hurt others, or will benefit the most amount of people, sometimes even if it doesn't benefit them. In short, Lawful Good people don't JUST adhere to the given rules, but still leave room for nuance for the greater good of the most people possible.
I see myself as a player as a lawful good person. The point is that the law I follow is utiliarianism: An action is right if it tends to promote happiness or pleasure and wrong if it tends to produce unhappiness or pain-not just for the performer of the action but also for everyone else affected by it. So you can be lawful but still flexible as long as you stick to that one rule.
I have a similar problem as a player and with some players at my table. I do my best to just shut up and play. And make it clear to my table that I am very happy for my players to bring up a rule I seemed to miss as rules aren’t my strongest suit, but there have been many times where I have said “yes, that’s cool” and a player goes “technically…”. In those situations, I make it very clear that that sort of thing is not helpful.
There's no good way to know when a rule is being ignored on purpose vs simply forgotten about. If you *ask,* then it can call into question the *validity* of intentionally ignoring the rule. Which is not, or shouldn't be, the goal. I play with people who usually feel like a victory that doesn't 100% follow the rules is no victory at all. If they win a fight but then later realize the DM forgot something, they feel like they cheated or something. Speaking for myself, I usually feel like I'm complicit in some scheme to sneak stuff past the DM, if I don't mention rules. But I do worry that it's annoying or that it's undermining the DM's authority. I used to DM with this group, and I'm really not trying to hang onto that authority but I think it might seem like I am.
I am in two campaigns with the same DM, one is 5e and the other is 3.5 and as you can imagine he gets the rules mixed up between editions quite often, and I really sympathize because I used to do this as well when I was running 3.5 and 5e concurrently. He will often ask me or one of the other players for a rule check, so at one point I started just volunteering it when I noticed him make a mistake. I think it's ok as long as the DM and you have a repertoire and it doesn't get to be something that bogs down the game. Otherwise, like you said, it's best to just shut up. :)
I love this. Just a Matt modeled a positive behavior for you, it's great to see you modeling critical self-reflection for us. It makes us all better players.
The DM ignoring a rule could also be a way to balance the fight or help a player if it goes realy bad. Dying to a heavy strike of an enemy is one thing, maybe even cool. But dying from a small fall after the hit, that feels just wrong. Had a game where I received heavy damage in the beginning of the fight (the dices didn't like me that day). The DM considered that drop out of the fight a bit to early so bent the rules a bit, to give me a chance to save myself. The dice rejected his try.
This was a well timed video for me, I’m currently playing in a campaign and I’m not sure if my DM mindset is infringing upon other peoples fun as I make reminders for concentration checks, etc
Based on the stories you present in this video, I would argue, that you went from being a lawful neutral player to being a lawful good player. And as always: Thanks for sharing Edit: I just realized you wrote the same thing in your info box :-D
"I am usually the DM, so I wasn't that attached to the character and damage wasn't a big deal for me" I wish I could say the same about myself... seriously, when I roll a bit too many low numbers, I get frustrated to a problematic degree, and start doing less and less to compensate. I am playing a Warlock with proficiency in Persuasion, and I made so many bad rolls that now I am completely useless out of combat because I'm too scared to talk. P.S.: To clarify, most of my time playing D&D is as the Dungeon Master.
Late comment to the video, but this rule isn't hard and fast in our group. We have a couple people who have DM'd before and a couple people who just generally like remembering rules, and although it's a group *groan* when they remind someone about damage rules, it's all in good fun and the DM always knows how to play it off fairly. I think everything you say in the video is true as hell, but we just happen to have a good dynamic around this tendency, because of the specific tone in the campaign and characters.
And here I sit, playing a grappler, wondering why I bothered with this expertise and feats at all when everything I invested in is given out for free to everybody else because "They don't care about the rules". I could have put all of that anywhere else and I would still get the benefits because the points don't matter and we're making the rules up as we go, we're playing "Whose Line is it Anyway?" but with a whole lot of dice rolling to interrupt the improv session. If playing the game isn't fun when the rules are invoked, I posit that you don't actually like playing the game. It actually doesn't matter if you don't care about dribbling, it's absolutely reasonable to expect everyone on the basketball court to dribble and it's absolutely out of line to assert that because you don't care about it you just shouldn't have to. There's nothing wrong with not actually liking a game. There's something wrong with undermining the game because you don't find the game fun. Fun isn't the end goal of a pastime, fun is the baseline. If you're *only* having fun, you're selling yourself and everybody else at your table short.
Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with the implicit assumption that the GM is an absolute unquestionable authority or that they must explicitly request rule corrections or reminders (especially in a game with so many rules that it's virtually impossible for any individual to remember them all). There is a perspective where more experienced or knowledgeable players feel an obligation to course-correct less experienced players AND GMs - not to be know-it-all busy bodies or whatever, but because they have experienced situations where inconsistent or erroneous rulings can result in a very dissatisfying experience. I'm a strong believer in internal consistency, even (or perhaps especially) in magical fantasy settings, and it really bugs me when a writer or GM decides that the physical laws of his setting don't apply in this case because it makes for a really cool story beat (or because a player has a tantrum). This is the kind of thinking that has led to the plothole-riddled, physics-defying garbage that is modern action cinema (not a model that should be emulated for TTRPGs, imo). For me it really destroys my immersion when a player (any player) gets away with something they shouldn't just because the GM happened to forget about established physical law. Gravity and mass, for example, should apply equally to everyone, and shouldn't just be turned off for a particular character because his player had his feelings hurt by an unheroic demise (or because one must not ever question the infallible judgment of the Almighty Game God). I reckon this illustrates the fundamental conflict between lawful and chaotic good - lawfuls tender prioritize obedience to the Authority and group harmony over equal and consistent application of the rules, and chaotics do the opposite. And as chaotic, I reflexively reject the assumption that the Lawful way is the more good way.
Me the DM and Me the Player are two very different people. DM me is high action "lets goooooo" energy, Player me is laid back, cautious and tactical... also Lawful Neutral but thats not important :P
Well, I’d say a LN or LE players would be the archetypical rules lawyer. LG players would tend towards more charity, and perhaps only bring things up when they are disrupting the game in a way the DM isn’t demonstrating awareness of.
Up until now I've always been a good player but now that I'm sittin on DM throne I'm not sure how I would react as a future player. Should be I afraid??? Hhaha
Nope! Just be mindful, and if you want to start offering advice, ask the DM if it’s okay/helpful. If they’d rather you didn’t, that’s ok, just respect their boundary :)
I am SO BAD about this. I try so hard to keep my thoughts to myself but it slips out periodically. I need to be more like Matt-the-player and less like... Me. 😅
As some one struggles with this as well after I started DMing and rarely playing now. Is it still disruptive if I point out rules that benefit other PCs? I feel like when I DM I can easily forget stuff like concentration checks, magic weapons PCs have or other things and I am glad when I get reminded. So I have the mindset of helping when I do this but I am not sure if I really helping or just tell other players how to DM/play their character.
I do something similar in my main game, we play online and I seem to be constantly reminding/asking my dm to check to make sure my aura is active...it does add a bonus to other players as well as myself so I view it as important.
It depends - if you’re reminding everyone of general rules that benefit them, or something from your own character sheet that helps them, that’s great! If you’re reminding them of their own mechanics, it may be worth asking if that’s useful, or if they feel comfortable making those calls themselves. Just like if you’re a player and you see the DM forgetting rules, I don’t think everyone has to keep their mouths shut always - if the DM is ok with it, or the other players find your reminders useful, you’re good. I just don’t have that level of control right now, so I need to keep my claptrap shut.
Figure out specifically what it is they are doing that is causing you a problem, and why it is disruptive for you. Let them know that you are struggling with this when you Dm. Provide specific examples of what it is you're talking about, explain why it's a problem for you in a non-accusatory manner, ask them if they can adjust their behavior. Together see if you can come up with a model of behavior that works for the two of you. The last one will depend on what you mean by back seat DMing, and how that manifests in their actions at the table. I recommend not doing this at a game, though you could do it after a session to have fresh examples of the behavior that is at issue. The main goal is to clarify the kind of game environment you want to have while you are running things, and if possible to find a way for your DM/player to get what they want out of the game without causing you issues. They might be confrontational, I can't speak to how you should deal with that as I don't know you or your table. But the focus is mostly on you trying to explain how what they are doing is making your job as DM harder, not easier. In that way, you're kind of asking them to help solve the problem they are the cause of, which feels less accusatory and more like something they can take action to help you with. Hope this is helpful, good luck.
@@SupergeekMike the "Man, I sure am rolling really well today. Let's hope I'm not using up all of my luck on fruitless perception and insight checks" kind of bad luck.
I find this advice really weird. When I DM, particularly if I'm DMing a complicated encounter, there is a lot to keep track of & I sometimes forget a relevant rule. If I only remember the rule after the session, I feel like I failed in my DMing responsibilities in some way and owe my players an apology. If, instead, a player reminds me of the rule when it comes up, it helps me to run the session the way I would actually *want* to run it, and I hugely appreciate the reminder. I think the lesson here should not be "don't point out rule oversights when you're not the DM", but "check with your DM to find out if they want you to point out rule oversights". Because some of us would genuinely prefer it.
I get that it is a different conversation than what you point on the video but: You can't be a lawful "Good" when you live in societies were the laws are not good. So in Capitalist society, for instance, you can't be lawful good. You can be a good person and it so happens that some laws are ethically good. But if your goal is to follow the "laws" you can't be good in these societies (and this is also true for most DnD settings) The fact that you recognize a person as nobility, is not good...
That assumption implies that lawful means obeying the laws of the land, rather than enforcing your own strict moral code. Captain America is the perfect example of a lawful good character, and he goes rogue from the US government in literally all three of his movies, because doing the right thing usually does not mean following orders from the US government.
@@SupergeekMike When has Captain America gone against US Imperialist doctrine? He may have fought against specific people in the government that mostly end up being members of hydra. Funny how he never goes against the actual know nazis and nazi benefactors in the US government. Nevertheless, your answer clears things a bit.However, I would argue that in that case it should be only referred to us lawful. The good or evil doesn't make sense in that reading. If they are based on your moral compass then they are good (subjectively). Who makes that judgement? Then we are back on square one (yeah I know discussions about ethics get pretty tiresome). I don't really play DnD but I like it as a unique form of storytelling and I like how in your videos you portray the interconnectiveness between DM and player/s
@@EllinasParamythas Oh yeah, those movies are still firmly pro-military industrial complex in their ideals, there's no denying that lol - I like the Winter Soldier movie a lot, but that doesn't change the fact that the Hydra twist is a total cop-out ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm glad you are enjoying the videos!
@@EllinasParamythas He was very anti-imperialist and far left when he was first reintroduced back in 1964. Of course, that's COMIC BOOK Captain America, and the comic book Captain America from old school Marvel to boot. All of that ended ... ehrm ... sometime in the '90s, I think? Around when marketing started having the power to make story decisions. I miss old Cap, but you can find scanned panels from those comics pretty easily. The MCU, of course, was produced in cooperation with the US Armed Forces and was intended to appeal to everyone, not just the tiny minority that still buys comic books, so of course they're going to go with the popular conception of Captain America as a nationalist ("my country, right or wrong") instead of a patriot ("my country can and will do better").
@@c.cooper2877 his country? Meaning the settler colonial state of the US? Pretty hard being a left-wing US "patriot". That's like saying there can be an Israeli left-wing "patriot". Your "overton window" is too small for you to use the terms you are using. Plus imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism made possible by the rise of monopolies and the merging of industrial capital with financial capital (of course as it is the case with all exploititive systems it is enforced via violence). I don't remember Captain America wanting a revolution or workers taking hold of the means of production. Just because he became more "hawkish" (brutal) with the years as you very intelligently described, doesn't change the truth of the matter. Using your own "my country can and wil do better" as the defining characteristic of a patriot, it doesn't tell as a lot about the essence of owns politics. "My country can and will do better" is linked with the aims pushed forward. We can be better at invading, murdering and pillaging the rest of the world either using our military might, our financial organisations (IMF), strangling them economically through the threat of NATO or using our economic standing to siege them economically (sanctions). To the native peoples of the US it matters little if their occupier is a nationalist or a patriot, when the aim of said nation was (and is) to eradicate them (or subordinate them).
![Yeat & Summrs - GO2WORK [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NEFEwfPcXRA/mqdefault.jpg)
Another good example of Matt Mercer displaying this behavior is in the Christmas oneshot that CR did a few years back. Liam was in the DM seat and asked Matt for help on a ruling, to his face. Matt leans back and says "It's your game, your decision" and only after Liam doubles down and asks again does he offer his opinion. I have a feeling that Matt is acutely aware of his role in the group as *The DM* and that his words are going to have a lot of weight, so he holds back as much as possible.
We saw the same thing from Chris Perkins when he was a guest player in Campaign One of CR. There were a couple of points during the battle with Umbrasyl that were very edge case with regards to the rules, and he simply sat there, looked down at his character sheet and let Matt run his game. Chris even checked with Matt on his own turns where he was reasonably stretching one of the rules.
I think for me, that was one of the most informative cases of only play your character and let the DM run their game. At that time, with the exception of Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford, Chris was the most influential person as to what it meant to be D&D in 5E, so if he avoided insinuating himself, then we certainly should.
When I clicked on this video, I thought it was going to be about playing Lawful Good characters, but I needed this lesson about being a Lawful Good player more. Thank you.
I'm a DM and when my players point out rules I missed I'm so happy. Especially when they have the integrity to deal with the bad ones. On the other side, I tend to do my best to let them know when they're not using their characters optimally. For example, reminding strength based PCs that they can use the finesse magic items too.
You can also just ask the DM instead of declaring anything. Then it's in their court. For example, with the character who fell you could just ask "Is that fall far enough to cause damage?" The DM can respond however they want.
I’ve done this before, too - it depends on the DM and the campaign, but I think a good compromise FOR ME (others may feel differently) would be to only do so for my character, not for everyone else’s. Otherwise I find it’s just another way for me to do the same thing in a different way.
I agree wholeheartedly, especially with doing so for your own character
@Vickiraytive Games I mean at that point it's about intention right? If you're manipulating the situation to question other people's moves then sure, but that's a whole other bag of cats.
If I've seen a character jump down into a hole and they seemed fine, but it's far enough it might be fall damage and I'm looking at that pit and making plans to knock somebody in it, or maybe try to jump over it, I can just assume that it's fine, or that they have some deal that means they don't take fall damage, or I can just ask the DM. The other thing is yeah, I can wait until I'm about to take my action to get the same information, but then I'm gonna have to come up with another plan on my turn.
If your intention when asking questions is to somehow screw over other players then yeah that's some questionable priorities, but if there's a question about rules you can ask it even if it doesn't relate just to your character in that moment. It's just information gathering.
There's other contexts, like a character casting a spell in a way that's not RAW or whatever, or using a class ability "wrong" that have nothing to do with you, but there's plenty of contexts where something someone is doing might need clarification, and you can just ask the DM what's going on. You asking a question is different from asserting a rule, and isn't pushing the DM any which way, they can still rule things however they want and you'll be on the same page. In my opinion, clarity is key to keeping things working smoothly at the table.
this is good for things enforced before or early play with the DM. if it is the first time the rule comes up or if 99 times it came up and the 100 is diffent Ideal! but if it is a rule that might have been diffent at diffent times fall damage is a good one as DM might enforce diffently at diffent points in the game. in the middle of complexes battle I will not kill a player by fall damage is reasonable if you think it though. That may not be true over all but ooops you dead because you fell 10 feet is week for story
@@katrinapoorman987 Depends on the scenario. Re: Fall damage, I once had that exact scenario happen to my barbarian. I was *literally* carrying my party members on my shoulders as we fled a powerful enemy, and tried to land a 10 foot jump, and failed and took enough damage I was dying. The monster was coming, and my party was panicking as they weren't big or strong enough to move me, and spell slots were low so healing was probably going to just result in me dying when the thing caught up anyways. It was really scary! One of them decided to draw the creature away, bravely risking himself to give the others time to drag me to safety. It was really tense, and a great character moment (even if getting knocked out by a fall I was sure was safe was a little annoying lol). So things are what you make of them.
Though there are plenty of scenarios where it might just be severely anticlimactic, lol.
I always respect someone who can not only learn from their mistakes, but genuinely admit them To get on the internet &say "yes, I WAS the asshole, and here's how I'm fixing it," and do that unprompted? Yeah man, respect. I don't have anything to contribute to the matter at hand, but that bore saying.
Thank you so much!
@@SupergeekMike Thank you! tbh, I'm in a pretty bad time, and the only thing that's helping is the random moments of decency... just to remind me that it ain't all like this. So yeah. The subject wasn't one for me, but the video still meant a lot.
going on a session 0 tomorrow for the first time in a while as a non DM, and seeing this was a good reminder since i've been in the rules lawyering camp for a while.
This video definitely gets me to pat on my own shoulder for subscribing man. This is a POV I've never witnessed, as usually I've been a DM. As a player I struggled many times to not "challenge" DM's agency even without willing to do so, but this tip reminded me of when a friend of mine, running his first ever campaign as a DM, told me "please, trust me as a DM, just enjoy" so I shutted the hell up about stuff that was secondary to the enjoyment of what was happening at the table. At the end I was misfocusing my role at the table, in doing so I was putting useless pressure above his shoulder and wasting time for everyone at the table. So yeah, N°1 rule should be "Have Fun" I think xD
I love it when my players remind me of stuff i forgot, it helps maintain immersion imo.
It does all depend on what the DM is comfortable with :)
This is something I've also struggled with over the years. Luckily, I learned my lesson on this a couple of years into playing dnd because my friends were kind enough to tell me to shut the hell up. I still do bring up the rules, but now it's only when it's something that affects my character or if my DM asks me about the rules. As my DM once said "Lemon is a tattle tale, but there's no one he tattles on more than himself." I like hard and deadly games, so I try to enforce the rules as much as I can for myself because 5e is pretty forgiving. A lot of people aren't like me however, and don't like those kinds of games.
I feel this on a personal level as I have similar tendencies on the occasion I get to be a player. And I think its a really fine line because having a "rules lawyer" who knows most of the rules really well can be very beneficial, as long as they aren't a dingus about it. These players can save a lot of time and keep the session flowing if there's ever a bit of confusion or disagreement over how a specific rule works instead of having to spend 5 minutes looking it up. But your end point about how matt does it is so spot on. Rules lawyer the heck out of yourself if that's your style and offer your understanding of the rules when asked but don't just butt in on other people playing their characters if you aren't the dm. Great video as always!
I always ask my GMs whether or not I would be welcomed to rules-lawyer. Sometimes, they encourage it because they're new GMs. Sometimes they don't want that. When they do, I still let it be a judgement call, because I love the rules but I also know it's not always a good time to interrupt a moment with the rules.
Of course, it's _perfectly fair_ to also try arguing for a rule that isn't being adhered to _if it effects your character._ If it doesn't effect you, don't worry about it. If it does, and you want others to learn from your example, call it out. The reason arguing for the rules you know is a good thing, is because it informs you on how to approach your involvement in the game. The more you know, and know will matter, the better armed you are to play the game in a fun, effective, and efficient way.
Very well said :)
Really liked to hear someone else struggling with this. This is something I have recently come to recognize about myself since I started as a player in a new campaign with people I didnt know before. I am taking steps to avoid it but it can be hard to beat back that initial impulse to correct a rule.
As a new player this video really speaks to me Mike. c: I'm usually kinda passive, (we're at session 1 so far!) but I really want to assert myself more, but I guess this will come in time.
I've learned, through various sources, that being lawful good isn't so much following the rules to the T--that's more Lawful Neutral/Evil--,it's more so setting the best example possible. Ironically the Character Morag from Xenoblade Chronicles 2 really drove this home for me. If I make a rules call out, it's mostly because I want clarification myself, but I understand that can be annoying. It's definitely a balancing act.
I had to learn to not let my idea of how to play get in the way of other people playing how they want to play, too. I think it started as optimization "suggestions", but then I started loving character ideas from other mediums(comics, novels, TV, anime, etc.) and some maybe don't fit in D&D optimally, so I end up playing sub-optimal characters that I love. And it totally changed my mind on everything. I am still available to help people if they want it, but I don't try and shove my opinions down people's ear throats anymore.
On the venn diagram among myself and my two other forever dm friends, you sit squarely in the middle of our styles. That you even look like a fusion of the 3 of us just makes it amusing too. This is a great lesson, thank you for sharing.
There’s a reason for that - alternate versions of all 3 of you jumped out of a Sliders portal and fused into me.
This may be the most obscure joke I’ve ever made.
I don't mind when my players correct me (my head is still stuck in 3.5 land for some reason - even though I've been playing 5e for longer at this point lol), but they're usually respectful enough to drop something if I decide I actually want to rule "uniquely". That strikes a good balance for me, because I prefer everyone to know the rules of the world and have those rules enforced predictably (even when I'm not capable of it), but I can see how it would be a problem at some tables.
I remember one person I played with who simply would not let anything go, even after direct confrontation with the DM over house rules we'd been using for months before they joined - definitely set a mood at the table. I vowed never to be that player after that. Now, as a player, I only speak up if it concerns me, and if it seems like an accidental advantage or disadvantage on some extreme scale has been given.
Managing your own circus is a good rule for if you play at a lot of different tables, but at our table, we like to make sure as many rules are followed as possible. It's hard for any one person to keep track of all the rules. If someone remembers a rule that should come up in a scenario, they've taken pressure off the DM. If the DM hears said rule and disagrees or rules that they won't be doing that, then we know it won't be an issue in the future, that way it's fair and the 'D&D Laws of Physics" remain consistent.
I have caught myself recently trying to "help the DM out" but reminding them of rules or things. And when the game is over, I always feel lousy because it isn't my game to run and maybe there was a reason the DM overlooked something. And even if there wasn't, it wasn't a game breaking omission. So I will also do my best to put the rule you mentioned in your video first before I try to be an unsolicited DM helper. Thanks!
I am a DM with a player like the one you described. I have to say that I am in no way annoyed by her. She pitches in to note when something rule-wise was forgotten - both wehen it is to her benefit and when it is to her detriment. I am really glad to have her in my group. It's not like she is arguing when I am intentionally doing something against RAW as a stated homebrew rule. It's only when a rule was unintentionally ignored or forgotten. I also don't feel insulted or embarrassed when it happens. I'm human and no DM can be expected to remember every rule or track every condition of every monster every time. So, as a DM who has played with a player you called problematic, I can honestly say that I don't see the problem here. (Unless there is some nuance to the behaviour that my player does not have that I kind of missed.)
It depends entirely on the DM’s wishes, and how the other players feel. If it’s not a problem at your table, then you’re all good! I can just say that this wasn’t the case at my table, which is why I needed to change my behavior.
Thank you for uploading this. Its definitely something that comes up most tables, putting strain on all witnessing, but doesnt get addressed often enough. Particularly from this viewpoint with this kindness. Well done, and thank you.
I think I was lucky for the fact that, most of my tabletop-playing existence, I have been an *idiot*. And I mean that genuinely without self-hate, I just didn't really understand the rules that well, but have always been enthusiastic to roleplay and hit goblins with friends, even if I need to ask the DM every time what a "save" means, or "what do i roll for insight?" So as I moved from one system to another, I never got a good enough grasp on the rules to become a Lawyer. Now, I'm old enough to have the patience to learn rules and systems, and even knowing how most of 5E works, I am still not a Lawyer, because I've had enough experiencing observing others try to DM from the player's seat. Respect your DM's style, let them decide how hard or soft their rulings are, even if they're occasionally inconsistent.
Watching this within a MINUTE of it coming out. Turns out Mike's upload times align with my evening PC times
It's one of the curses of socially awkward groups and, well, culture in general. I think it's important, both as people and as groups that play together, to acknowledge that we can't read minds. It's **incredibly** difficult to self-reflect, analyse your own actions, and realize after the fact that "Hey, I think other people weren't too happy with this."
I think the reason it might have taken Mike so long to realize is partly because of that. There's this weird stigma around giving people feedback or, gasp, being confrontational if they do something you don't like. That social interaction is difficult, awkward, and unpleasant, so no one wants to do it!
I know that was a big obstacle for me, it wasn't until I started playing sports and getting more direct feedback from people that I started paying attention to how I interacted and tried to push my rules/views onto others. Big learning curves!
short videos like these are very much appreciated! screw the algorithm, these are an absolute treat
I appreciate them sometimes too lol
This is something I struggled with for a while, but I believe I have made a turn for the better as of recent, usually only arguing in favor of the rules specifically to the players advantage.
I learned as much as I did about the base rules because when I had nothing to do, sometimes I'd literally just make a new character and pin it on my corkboard I have next to my desk. So after about a year or so, I had become so familiar with the rules of basic class features and some subclasses that I was able to help others who were playing classes I played in the past, like when a new barbarian player failed a dex save but forgot to roll with advantage because of Danger Sense. Or when a rogue player was trying to remember if Sneak Attack applied in a given situation or that they had Evasion and should still only take half damage from a failed dex save.
Thankfully I don't think I remember (as far as recent memory is concerned) of me arguing in favor of a ruling that was against the players, so I think I'm starting to get better at that
I was almost brought to tears during the gift opening
While I haven't struggled with this issue very much (I'm usually fine about fudging/shrugging off rules as needed), this was interesting to hear about. Thank you for continuing to cover topics for players and DMs in a wide range of concerns.
This reminds me when I running a lich in a fight and a player (who is also a DM) reminded me about legendary actions--probably because I haven't run legendary monsters in a while. Weirdly it got his character killed. He was cool about it, but the other players had a lot of fun rubbing it in that he reminded me of that rule.
I mostly play on line these days, and I’ve found that shooting a private message to the DM (we use discord) can strike a good middle ground. It doesn’t disrupt play or put pressure on the DM to do anything by “calling them out” and puts the power in their hands to make the change if it was a genuine oversight or something they want to prioritize
A great compromise! It also always depends on your dynamic with the DM, of course
Watching a lot of Mike's videos out of order, and it's odd that this video came out before his video about players reacting poorly to their character dying, because that video felt like it was really missing the perspective that the player just....really liked that character and are upset they're gone, and don't want to play another (and in the instances this was brought up, it was tied to other reasons like newcomers who aren't experienced or someone just feeling the story was powerful enough.) Where in this video Mike addresses that as a person that typically DM's, he doesn't have the same attachment to characters that typical players may.
Thank you Mike! I really appreciate the example of learning from our past selves and trying to do better and treat others better going forward!
As a DM and as a player, I genuinely want to follow the rules. 99% of the times that I don't follow the rules are times when I just forgot the rule, or, more specifically, I forgot that the situation called for a rule (like your story about forgetting to roll falling damage). So, when I'm DM'ing, and a player reminds me that I forgot something, I'm not annoyed. I super appreciate it. Because I would've applied the rule if I'd remembered it. I just forgot. So I generally wouldn't mind if you raised your hand and said "Teacher, teacher. You forgot to assign homework."
But I see the point about how other players might be annoyed. So, I think it REALLY depends on what rule you're trying to call out. Like... very specifically. Think about it -- do you think it's right to call out a rule correction in these situations:
1) The DM forgot to roll a Concentration check for a monster.
2) The DM forgot to call for a Concentration check for a PC.
3) The DM forgot that certain terrain was difficult terrain, and moved a monster too far.
4) The DM and a player forgot that certain terrain was difficult terrain, and the PC moved too far.
5) The DM forgot to roll to recharge the dragon's breath weapon on the dragon's turn.
6) The DM and players forgot that there's no light in this room, and some PCs don't have darkvision.
7) The DM forgot that a monster is frightened and should have disadvantage.
8) The DM called for an Acrobatics check when it should've been Athletics.
9) The DM called for an Investigation check when it should've been Perception.
10) The DM accidentally skipped a monster in the initiative order.
11) The DM and player forgot that this player's shortbow attack is outside the normal range for shortbows, so it should have disadvantage.
I think we begin to see that things like #1 and #10 are the kind of things a DM might really appreciate players' help with. And things like #8 and #9 would be super annoying for a player to call out. And things like #4 are grey enough that people might disagree about whether it's right to call it out.
So I'm not sure if I agree with the advice to just shut up and never call out rules that don't directly affect yourself. I appreciate my players calling out certain things.
These are good examples, and I also agree with which ones are grey areas. But yeah, concentration seems like the #1 offender of tracking so much that you just forget. I've never seen/felt DM struggle when concentration is called out
It’s a good point, it depends entirely on your DM. I just know, for myself, I need to remove this behavior unless it’s specifically invited by the DM.
@@grim_glim ya, I’ve had times I’ve immediately rolled a con save for concentration after taking damage and the DM asking why I rolled a con save.
I feel this - Especially since I play a lot of board games and GMless systems where it's kind of on everyone to remind each other of rules oversights.
I just tell myself that the GM's got a houserule, deliberately or otherwise, and bite my tongue when it happens.
Great video, Mike. Love your takes and perspectives and how you land them.
Also, i would love to hear your opinion about the vecna's hand steal. I've seen strong opinions on both sides.
I’ll get there at some point! Although I can tell you my general feeling is that Joe has a different play style than the rest of the cast and that could’ve caused some friction in that moment, but instead it manifested into one of the best heel turns ever, something that really only worked because it was the end of the campaign.
Also, I think if it had actually bothered anybody in the cast, somebody would’ve asked if they had a chance to react, but in addition to being stunned, they were all pretty entertained :)
This is a really timely video for me. I just typed and then deleted a message to our DM about two potential rules issues with a barbarian in our party. I have been struggling with whether or not to say something since our last session, and at this point, I think a I will go the “LG player” route and not say anything… for now. I do feel that there comes a time when rules abuse may disrupt play balance and actually can diminish the fun on the table. The DM can sometimes feel like he can’t do enough to challenge one player, maybe not even realizing that the player is “missing” a rule, and set encounter difficulties higher to compensate, thereafter diminishing the potential contributions of the other characters.
On another note, though, as a player, I actually want someone to point out if I’m missing a rule or using an ability wrong, so I can play properly Then again, I’m the type of player who usually asks “can I do this” with an ability, instead of saying “I do this”, and promote the DM to make a ruling for a novel use of a spell/ability.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head - folks can absolutely opt into being reminded of rules, but I don’t want to keep being the person who offers unsolicited advice like I have so often. I’m so glad it helped you!
Wow, I super needed this video. I am also a lawful good person (I once felt bad for not going to the basement during a tornado drill), and I know I am always pointing out things to my DM. Not rules, necessarily, but things being realistic. That’s what I care about in a story… but it’s not what everyone else cares about. And I’m watching Escape from the Bloodkeep too! Matt is such a generous player; you can tell he would never dream of correcting another DM unless asked.
I've lately been grappling with the concept of lawful good in the real world. I'm becoming convinced it is an oxymoron. Truly good people break rules that are evil or hindering their path to actually doing good. Also no set of rules and especially no country's laws are made up of only good rules with always good outcomes.
Here no matter what the title and I always have a good time. Thanks for making content, it lightens the load of the day a lot. I appreciate all the effort you put in for us 💚 thx
(slightly off-topic, but) whenever anybody thinks lawful good characters in dnd its always someone who always follows local societal laws and trusts authorities, assuming them to be always good. which of course is always going to be a political issue which is why its so controversial. but to how i see it, if we view the vertical good-to-evil axis as sense of self-preservation, and the horizontal lawful-to-chaotic axis as direct-to-sporadic approach, then lawful good would be more like a disciplined good-doer. it measures intent and one's inner-workings, not government shenanigans
I'm a very blessed player with two normally-consistent games a week, with friends I have played games with for many years now. I think, if I were with a group I wasn't as close with, I'd follow the same rules you laid out here (call myself and nobody else out). But with my friends...I'll speak up if the DM, who has to track a million things, forgets one thing, regardless of whether it's beneficial or detrimental. For me, when we win without hand-waving bad situations away, that's when the story is at its greatest.
Honestly though, I still have this fear, where I want to speak up because I think everyone else would me to speak up, but I don't want to tread on anybody's toes, or be that "rules lawyer" who bogs the game down. Generally what I'll try to do, is apologetically speak up if I think somebody is forgetting something. I don't want them to suffer because I remembered something, but I really do feel like I'll be doing a disservice to everybody if I don't say anything.
I guess in my mind, if I as a player am allowed to be a monk and force the DM to make a thousand constitution saving throws where even one invalidates an enemy (and, if I stun them early, ALSO dodge so that I'll probably never get hit), then the DM's enemies should also be allowed to get use out of things like poisoning the rogue so it is a LOT harder for him to sneak attack.
I think Sam from CR is really good at this. He always enforces the rules for himself but doesn't jump in like Tal or Liam can do when it concerns other players
Thanks for the vid. As a rules lawyer being a bit confused about dm rulings, this was a good reminder that I don’t need to point out every little thing that is inaccurate to the rules
I’m glad I can help someone else who was in the same boat as me 😁
Definitely not the target audience here lol. I always appreciate, even as a DM, being reminded of rules. I forget stuff constantly lol
Lol it’s always up to DM preference :) I just don’t always know/respect the boundaries when I’m playing so I had to implement this rule for my own good and for the good of my groups
This is absolutely something I think should be discussed at session 0. I tell all my players that I strive to follow all the rules in the PHB, but I may forget some from time to time and encourage the players to let me know at the table if I'm missing a rule. The characters are living in a real world to them, and the rule of gravity applies even if I as the DM forget to apply it. The players know this going into it that their characters are subject to all the rules, good and bad, of the system. I encourage players to remind me if I'm forgetting a rule even if it does not relate to their character. No one has ever had a problem with that. But also I assume it's because we talked about it at session 0 and they know to expect it and it's not coming from out of the blue.
Exactly, as long as everyone is on board there’s no issue, so discussing expectations at session zero is a great solution!
Difference between being a LAWFUL good player as opposed to a lawful GOOD player. I struggle with the same stuff. Glad to see you got some wisdom for me :)
I appreciate this video so much. I’m quite similar - and it’s always from a perspective of trying to “help.” But you’re exactly right with this video. Very well done!!
Lawful Good people - yes, characters included - prioritize the "Good" in "Lawful Good," while adhering to laws that benefit (or at least don't harm as much as possible) others, and maybe ignoring or fighting against laws that hurt others, or will benefit the most amount of people, sometimes even if it doesn't benefit them. In short, Lawful Good people don't JUST adhere to the given rules, but still leave room for nuance for the greater good of the most people possible.
My goodness I love your content. Seriously important to this rule follower right here.
I see myself as a player as a lawful good person.
The point is that the law I follow is utiliarianism: An action is right if it tends to promote happiness or pleasure and wrong if it tends to produce unhappiness or pain-not just for the performer of the action but also for everyone else affected by it.
So you can be lawful but still flexible as long as you stick to that one rule.
I have a similar problem as a player and with some players at my table. I do my best to just shut up and play. And make it clear to my table that I am very happy for my players to bring up a rule I seemed to miss as rules aren’t my strongest suit, but there have been many times where I have said “yes, that’s cool” and a player goes “technically…”. In those situations, I make it very clear that that sort of thing is not helpful.
There's no good way to know when a rule is being ignored on purpose vs simply forgotten about. If you *ask,* then it can call into question the *validity* of intentionally ignoring the rule. Which is not, or shouldn't be, the goal.
I play with people who usually feel like a victory that doesn't 100% follow the rules is no victory at all. If they win a fight but then later realize the DM forgot something, they feel like they cheated or something.
Speaking for myself, I usually feel like I'm complicit in some scheme to sneak stuff past the DM, if I don't mention rules. But I do worry that it's annoying or that it's undermining the DM's authority. I used to DM with this group, and I'm really not trying to hang onto that authority but I think it might seem like I am.
I am in two campaigns with the same DM, one is 5e and the other is 3.5 and as you can imagine he gets the rules mixed up between editions quite often, and I really sympathize because I used to do this as well when I was running 3.5 and 5e concurrently. He will often ask me or one of the other players for a rule check, so at one point I started just volunteering it when I noticed him make a mistake.
I think it's ok as long as the DM and you have a repertoire and it doesn't get to be something that bogs down the game. Otherwise, like you said, it's best to just shut up. :)
Getting the DM’s consent is very important, for sure
thanks for the tips ive really had issues with this
I love this. Just a Matt modeled a positive behavior for you, it's great to see you modeling critical self-reflection for us. It makes us all better players.
The DM ignoring a rule could also be a way to balance the fight or help a player if it goes realy bad.
Dying to a heavy strike of an enemy is one thing, maybe even cool. But dying from a small fall after the hit, that feels just wrong.
Had a game where I received heavy damage in the beginning of the fight (the dices didn't like me that day). The DM considered that drop out of the fight a bit to early so bent the rules a bit, to give me a chance to save myself. The dice rejected his try.
This was a well timed video for me, I’m currently playing in a campaign and I’m not sure if my DM mindset is infringing upon other peoples fun as I make reminders for concentration checks, etc
Concentration checks is another one I have FREQUENTLY reminded DMs of without being prompted
Based on the stories you present in this video, I would argue, that you went from being a lawful neutral player to being a lawful good player.
And as always: Thanks for sharing
Edit: I just realized you wrote the same thing in your info box :-D
Thank you for sharing!
I've found I also struggle with this. Glas to see I'm not the only one.
"I am usually the DM, so I wasn't that attached to the character and damage wasn't a big deal for me"
I wish I could say the same about myself... seriously, when I roll a bit too many low numbers, I get frustrated to a problematic degree, and start doing less and less to compensate. I am playing a Warlock with proficiency in Persuasion, and I made so many bad rolls that now I am completely useless out of combat because I'm too scared to talk.
P.S.: To clarify, most of my time playing D&D is as the Dungeon Master.
I shall endeavor to internalize this lesson for the good of all groups I am to be a part of
Wow, this is a lesson that I need to learn too.
Late comment to the video, but this rule isn't hard and fast in our group. We have a couple people who have DM'd before and a couple people who just generally like remembering rules, and although it's a group *groan* when they remind someone about damage rules, it's all in good fun and the DM always knows how to play it off fairly.
I think everything you say in the video is true as hell, but we just happen to have a good dynamic around this tendency, because of the specific tone in the campaign and characters.
And here I sit, playing a grappler, wondering why I bothered with this expertise and feats at all when everything I invested in is given out for free to everybody else because "They don't care about the rules". I could have put all of that anywhere else and I would still get the benefits because the points don't matter and we're making the rules up as we go, we're playing "Whose Line is it Anyway?" but with a whole lot of dice rolling to interrupt the improv session.
If playing the game isn't fun when the rules are invoked, I posit that you don't actually like playing the game. It actually doesn't matter if you don't care about dribbling, it's absolutely reasonable to expect everyone on the basketball court to dribble and it's absolutely out of line to assert that because you don't care about it you just shouldn't have to.
There's nothing wrong with not actually liking a game. There's something wrong with undermining the game because you don't find the game fun.
Fun isn't the end goal of a pastime, fun is the baseline. If you're *only* having fun, you're selling yourself and everybody else at your table short.
Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with the implicit assumption that the GM is an absolute unquestionable authority or that they must explicitly request rule corrections or reminders (especially in a game with so many rules that it's virtually impossible for any individual to remember them all). There is a perspective where more experienced or knowledgeable players feel an obligation to course-correct less experienced players AND GMs - not to be know-it-all busy bodies or whatever, but because they have experienced situations where inconsistent or erroneous rulings can result in a very dissatisfying experience.
I'm a strong believer in internal consistency, even (or perhaps especially) in magical fantasy settings, and it really bugs me when a writer or GM decides that the physical laws of his setting don't apply in this case because it makes for a really cool story beat (or because a player has a tantrum). This is the kind of thinking that has led to the plothole-riddled, physics-defying garbage that is modern action cinema (not a model that should be emulated for TTRPGs, imo). For me it really destroys my immersion when a player (any player) gets away with something they shouldn't just because the GM happened to forget about established physical law. Gravity and mass, for example, should apply equally to everyone, and shouldn't just be turned off for a particular character because his player had his feelings hurt by an unheroic demise (or because one must not ever question the infallible judgment of the Almighty Game God).
I reckon this illustrates the fundamental conflict between lawful and chaotic good - lawfuls tender prioritize obedience to the Authority and group harmony over equal and consistent application of the rules, and chaotics do the opposite. And as chaotic, I reflexively reject the assumption that the Lawful way is the more good way.
Me the DM and Me the Player are two very different people. DM me is high action "lets goooooo" energy, Player me is laid back, cautious and tactical... also Lawful Neutral but thats not important :P
This is a good channel. I like Mike.
Your description of a lawful good player sounds like a way of saying "Rules Lawyer"
Oh, absolutely. That's the habit I needed to break.
Well, I’d say a LN or LE players would be the archetypical rules lawyer. LG players would tend towards more charity, and perhaps only bring things up when they are disrupting the game in a way the DM isn’t demonstrating awareness of.
Up until now I've always been a good player but now that I'm sittin on DM throne I'm not sure how I would react as a future player. Should be I afraid??? Hhaha
Nope! Just be mindful, and if you want to start offering advice, ask the DM if it’s okay/helpful. If they’d rather you didn’t, that’s ok, just respect their boundary :)
Me too this is also an issue I struggle with thank you and ouch.
Hahaha well said
I am SO BAD about this. I try so hard to keep my thoughts to myself but it slips out periodically. I need to be more like Matt-the-player and less like... Me. 😅
As some one struggles with this as well after I started DMing and rarely playing now. Is it still disruptive if I point out rules that benefit other PCs? I feel like when I DM I can easily forget stuff like concentration checks, magic weapons PCs have or other things and I am glad when I get reminded. So I have the mindset of helping when I do this but I am not sure if I really helping or just tell other players how to DM/play their character.
I do something similar in my main game, we play online and I seem to be constantly reminding/asking my dm to check to make sure my aura is active...it does add a bonus to other players as well as myself so I view it as important.
It depends - if you’re reminding everyone of general rules that benefit them, or something from your own character sheet that helps them, that’s great! If you’re reminding them of their own mechanics, it may be worth asking if that’s useful, or if they feel comfortable making those calls themselves. Just like if you’re a player and you see the DM forgetting rules, I don’t think everyone has to keep their mouths shut always - if the DM is ok with it, or the other players find your reminders useful, you’re good.
I just don’t have that level of control right now, so I need to keep my claptrap shut.
@@SupergeekMike It seems that I am on the right path then already. Thanks, you both.
So anyone have advice for dealing with back seat dms? Especially when you have a player that dms a different game you're a player in
Ooh good question. I need to give that one some thought
Figure out specifically what it is they are doing that is causing you a problem, and why it is disruptive for you. Let them know that you are struggling with this when you Dm. Provide specific examples of what it is you're talking about, explain why it's a problem for you in a non-accusatory manner, ask them if they can adjust their behavior. Together see if you can come up with a model of behavior that works for the two of you. The last one will depend on what you mean by back seat DMing, and how that manifests in their actions at the table. I recommend not doing this at a game, though you could do it after a session to have fresh examples of the behavior that is at issue.
The main goal is to clarify the kind of game environment you want to have while you are running things, and if possible to find a way for your DM/player to get what they want out of the game without causing you issues. They might be confrontational, I can't speak to how you should deal with that as I don't know you or your table. But the focus is mostly on you trying to explain how what they are doing is making your job as DM harder, not easier. In that way, you're kind of asking them to help solve the problem they are the cause of, which feels less accusatory and more like something they can take action to help you with.
Hope this is helpful, good luck.
You're lawful good irl because of your morals
I'm lawful good irl because I have really, *really* bad luck
We are not the same
Lol what kind of bad luck?
@@SupergeekMike the "Man, I sure am rolling really well today. Let's hope I'm not using up all of my luck on fruitless perception and insight checks" kind of bad luck.
Did you get a sunburn?
I filmed this when I was still recovering from COVID, that’s probably what you’re seeing
lawful? why would anyone play anything but chaotic? in game or in real life.
Everyone thinks their own alignment is the only sensible one. I'm baffled how anyone can not be lawful.
Don't treat people as you want to be treated. Treat people how they wa t to be treated. This message is brought to you by human resources.
I find this advice really weird. When I DM, particularly if I'm DMing a complicated encounter, there is a lot to keep track of & I sometimes forget a relevant rule. If I only remember the rule after the session, I feel like I failed in my DMing responsibilities in some way and owe my players an apology. If, instead, a player reminds me of the rule when it comes up, it helps me to run the session the way I would actually *want* to run it, and I hugely appreciate the reminder.
I think the lesson here should not be "don't point out rule oversights when you're not the DM", but "check with your DM to find out if they want you to point out rule oversights". Because some of us would genuinely prefer it.
I think that’s a huge part of it - getting your DM’s consent
I get that it is a different conversation than what you point on the video but:
You can't be a lawful "Good" when you live in societies were the laws are not good. So in Capitalist society, for instance, you can't be lawful good. You can be a good person and it so happens that some laws are ethically good. But if your goal is to follow the "laws" you can't be good in these societies (and this is also true for most DnD settings) The fact that you recognize a person as nobility, is not good...
That assumption implies that lawful means obeying the laws of the land, rather than enforcing your own strict moral code. Captain America is the perfect example of a lawful good character, and he goes rogue from the US government in literally all three of his movies, because doing the right thing usually does not mean following orders from the US government.
@@SupergeekMike When has Captain America gone against US Imperialist doctrine? He may have fought against specific people in the government that mostly end up being members of hydra. Funny how he never goes against the actual know nazis and nazi benefactors in the US government. Nevertheless, your answer clears things a bit.However, I would argue that in that case it should be only referred to us lawful. The good or evil doesn't make sense in that reading. If they are based on your moral compass then they are good (subjectively). Who makes that judgement? Then we are back on square one (yeah I know discussions about ethics get pretty tiresome). I don't really play DnD but I like it as a unique form of storytelling and I like how in your videos you portray the interconnectiveness between DM and player/s
@@EllinasParamythas Oh yeah, those movies are still firmly pro-military industrial complex in their ideals, there's no denying that lol - I like the Winter Soldier movie a lot, but that doesn't change the fact that the Hydra twist is a total cop-out ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm glad you are enjoying the videos!
@@EllinasParamythas He was very anti-imperialist and far left when he was first reintroduced back in 1964. Of course, that's COMIC BOOK Captain America, and the comic book Captain America from old school Marvel to boot. All of that ended ... ehrm ... sometime in the '90s, I think? Around when marketing started having the power to make story decisions. I miss old Cap, but you can find scanned panels from those comics pretty easily.
The MCU, of course, was produced in cooperation with the US Armed Forces and was intended to appeal to everyone, not just the tiny minority that still buys comic books, so of course they're going to go with the popular conception of Captain America as a nationalist ("my country, right or wrong") instead of a patriot ("my country can and will do better").
@@c.cooper2877 his country? Meaning the settler colonial state of the US? Pretty hard being a left-wing US "patriot". That's like saying there can be an Israeli left-wing "patriot". Your "overton window" is too small for you to use the terms you are using. Plus imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism made possible by the rise of monopolies and the merging of industrial capital with financial capital (of course as it is the case with all exploititive systems it is enforced via violence). I don't remember Captain America wanting a revolution or workers taking hold of the means of production. Just because he became more "hawkish" (brutal) with the years as you very intelligently described, doesn't change the truth of the matter. Using your own "my country can and wil do better" as the defining characteristic of a patriot, it doesn't tell as a lot about the essence of owns politics. "My country can and will do better" is linked with the aims pushed forward. We can be better at invading, murdering and pillaging the rest of the world either using our military might, our financial organisations (IMF), strangling them economically through the threat of NATO or using our economic standing to siege them economically (sanctions). To the native peoples of the US it matters little if their occupier is a nationalist or a patriot, when the aim of said nation was (and is) to eradicate them (or subordinate them).