One thing missing from this video, that used to be a major component of DM advice in the 70s and early 80s, is that CONSISTENCY is more important than accuracy. Your players won't mind if you're making a ruling on the fly that might contradict the "real" rule, as long as your rulings today, are consistent with your rulings from last week and last month. In fact a lot of "rulings" come about because you DO know the rule...and you just don't like it! So you make up your own! It used to be, DMs were told to make something up and move on, that was virtuous, but they were also told that their rulings need to be consistent with the rulings you made before. Player only rebel when the DM seems *capricious*. Players need to be able to predict how something will turn out, and if you're not consistent in your rulings, they stop trusting you and you lose them. The more you DM, the more you develop your own style and your rulings become more consistent, but it never hurts to ask your players how you ruled on an issue before. No need to be proud, it's much worse to contradict yourself than it is to just ask the players "how did we deal with this last time?"
I think the idea of needing to be consistent is why some players and DMs prefer a robust rules system. We can make a ruling on the fly and not understand the long term consequences of that ruling. And now we are faced with a choice, we could stick to it and potentially lose some aspect of our game that we held dear whether it be it the verisimilitude or the power balance, or anything else. Or we could change the ruling and though we have good reason to do so we may come across as unfair now that we are changing how things are ruled.
I agree with the idea that being capricious is what turned me off from two DM I have had in the past. I KNOW they didn't read the 5e rules and they had trouble with understanding nuance in games like Wiz War. One DM would systematically take the opposite argument I would be able to point out through thorough page attributions and examples. Issues I have had: the DM made me hit a party member with a fireball because I was in magical darkness, and to him, it didn't make sense I would be able to have precision to hit enemies on the left and not the ally on the right. But the spell mentions nothing about needing sight (just like attack roll spells. Usually saving throw cantrips do require sight). Another example: the DM doffed plate armor in one action when I cast heat metal. Same battle, the DM went invisible but did not take the hide action so I just happened to miss with Faerie Fire. Another example is DMs not understanding the mechanics behind heavily obscured areas, often still allowing opportunity attacks or just calling it blanket disadvantage. While the rules seem weird here, why be inconsistent. Technically, fog cloud can extend the range of your longbow attacks as a straight roll. That's how the rules work, but this doesn't make sense to some DMs but casting magic spells does. Eventually, it is arbitrary. I agree that being consistent is most important. Enough of these instances, you realize the DM doesn't pay much attention to detail or game mechanics and attacks you for "rules lawyering" which is basically the community-allowed cut down when things are too complex for them and they are feeling shut down. I understand d&d is a game that brings together the imaginative but it will also bring those of us technical science and engineering/STEM field people, and I feel like by not playing by rules, you're saying D&D is just for people who have imagination but no technical aptitude. The value is placed on those with imagination and not those who can handle complex rules systems. Why not let those who understand it show you why and then recognize others have strengths you don't? I recognize my story telling and authoring isn't as good, but I don't trash authors. Don't attack technical people because you're not good at it. You're making a whole video character attacking people who feel safe with rules. For you, rules hold you back. One is not right, but it is important to direct these people to games that place high priority on rules as written than to attack a common personality. These said people may take comfort in counting calories and writing down their sets and reps in the gym. Other people are extremely overweight and value the social aspects of eating and trying various culinary permutations of nutrition, something the American culture prioritizes and has health problems because of. So in the spirit of inclusivity, which I know you value having watched your other videos and being very liberal (ironically liberals are anything but inclusive these days), why is it ok for you to bash a personality style but it isn't ok to discriminate in other ways? If you don't like it, you can say what kind of table you wish to play at and save us all the frustration of playing together.
@@jrg305 Almost took you seriously until you decided to make it about politics at the end. I'm sorry you had a bad time with DMs who clearly didn't understand the rules in the first place (which is clearly not what he was talking about, btw), but it's not the same as experiencing racism or sexism or homophobia. Sit down.
@@jrg305 This may be what you took from it, because you feel somehow personally attacked, but you are off center on what he was saying. Having gamed with and under EE majors and coders I understand where you're coming from, but you've miscalculated here.
I have a rules lawyer in my group. He loves reading and memorising rules, and he's also a DM from time to time. I can tell you he's a great addition, because when I'm running, he respects my ruling, and if I think I need some clarification, I can ask him, and he'll explain it to us. He doesn't fight over "the correct way" or any of that, he's just a chill dude who loves D&D and likes to know the rules in the book!
I like calling such folks "Rules Shepherds", just to distinguish them from the bad connotations to Rules Lawyers. They know all/most of their "sheep" (rules) very well, and keep watch to make sure none of them go forgotten or stray away (aka remembering the table's rulings and helping with the rules the DM has "forgotten"). However, unlike Rules Lawyers, who just wish to debate what is "right vs wrong"/why their "client" (interpretation of the rules) is right, a Rules Shepherd doesn't mind if one of the sheep is a bit different from how they think sheep should act (aka if the DM rules differently than RAW). Rules Shepherds care for the rules so they can protect/safeguard them, not to argue over them
I have to fight my rules lawyer tendencies, and the player/dm you described is how I strive to be as a player (it's hard, lol). @@Patches2212 Rules Shepherd is a great term I'm totally going to use in the future.
I think that a rules Lawyer would be less of a person who knows the rules and likes for them to be followed like a "Rules Scholar", and more like somebody who will argue for specific interpretations of rules that will give them an advantage as a lawyer is often seen as not really caring about what the law is or its intent but whether or not they can keep their client from being punished.
@@Patches2212 I love this. I was going to comment and say "I'm not sure you can truly call someone a rules lawyer if they are not shouting 'OBJECTION!' to the other players, DM included, on a regular basis." To me Rules Lawyer is in behavior, not in how versed someone is with the rules. The behavior described here is clearly another thing and I like Rules Shepherd as a descriptor for that!
My first DM always made sure to remind us, in those "but the rules say" moments, that it was the Player's Handbook, not the Player's Rulebook. Dungeon Master's Guide. Not Dungeon Master's Rules.
It's funny you say that, I had a conversation with a player today who told me to "Read the Rulebook, Nat 1s aren't a thing"... I proceeded to tell him that they are in my world, and he said "I want you to read the Rulebook and make a list of every rule you are following and every rule you are making up..." I don't think my campaign is the right campaign for him, and I think I'll tell him what you are saying here. "It's the Player's Handbook, not the Player's Rulebook."
@@pensato348 Making a rough list of things you typically deviate from the rules on isn't really a bad idea. For example, if you're going to be using a crit fumble table, a player might want to know that before they choose a fighter, where you could significantly affect the function of their character. Obviously, asking for every rule you're house ruling can be excessive, but if you know some ahead of time, that should really be covered in session zero. I might rule something different than the rules on the fly, but I do crits different than RAW, so I make sure to let my players know ahead of time.
@@paximilian4037 yeah, for sure, communication is essential, and asking for home rules isn't that bad of a thing. The problem was much more complicated than I could explain easily in a comment, but the problem really came from a sense of not wanting to fail... ever... not that the rules I was playing by weren't clear. I had gone over some expectations and home-rules in our Session 0, but I didn't expect to have to explain nat 1s and nat 20s being special, because I've never seen or played in a game where they weren't automatic failures or successes. Either way, though, it was nice that the disagreement happened because it lead to me understanding that our styles of play and what we enjoyed from the game were significantly different.
I run online using discord. I have a tab for rules. General rules that apply game wide. Specific rules, like can the artificers pet give or receive flanking. And as things come up, as they always do, I add to that tally.
A man goes wine tasting. "Ah yes, a fine aroma." He takes a sip. "With distinct hints of blue, harkening back to my youth and the overconsumption of aquatic mammalian popsicles."
It's incredible the amount if juice this channel gives. It took me years to learn a lot of stuff that is just simply and eloquently presented in this channel. So many people can pick up their DM screen, binge this channel and start where I was starting years into the hobby. There's no substitute for running the game still, but man can you get a running start. What a time to play DnD!
That’s exactly what I did! I spent a summer watching literally all of his running the game videos and then ran campaigns where I put his lessons into action. I’m a much better DM than I would have been because of it!
@@voltdragon Good on you, it's such a good launching point. I'm sure you're both starting at a better point and learning faster than I ever did. It's great!
If even the only thing people get from this channel is, "Don't wait. Just start." I think that's pretty valuable. Matt might have a different value proposition in mind, considering his effort, though.
i kinda miss those 3 hours fights about grapple tho. but man, todays roleplaying systems are fun and the amount of excelent GM's giving you advise is shoking.
Matt calls it a rant, but this feels more to me like an introductory lecture to The Philosophy of RPGs as taught by him. And, in fact, I can think of few people better equipped to proctor such a lesson for us all here on RUclips. I move to change Matt's title from "The King of Kickstarter" to "Preeminent Philosopher of RPGs".
It is a rant because of it's inspiration, which much be addressed in the work. Joyless pedants. This is good philosophy, and I want more of it. Matt covers a lot of other related areas of philosophy soundly, and exploring the philosophy of storytelling is something we are sorely missing.
*You're (In all seriousness, this was a great video, both about people, language, and how we interact with the world, both in helpful and unhelpful ways. Beautifully done, thank you!)
I saw that, too. I wonder if we now get tabletop reviews of tabletop games from a not-brilliant man ... Sorry Nick, nice to see you on a completely different channel! And now we need to find out whether Matt collects knives ... or watches ;+) And yes, very good video. Thank you from me as well!
I'd say the thing about language specifically is that every community will use language differently and understand 'deviations' common to their group. When communicating between communities or cultures, however, technical accuracy becomes much more important since the common understanding is not guaranteed to exist. Every game group could use entirely idiosyncratic house rules and it would work fine within that context. What a ruleset does is allow people to talk about a game as something that exists beyond a single group, as something common to a greater community.
I grew up in a family of writers. You are preaching to the choir. In our family, the phrase "The point of language is to communicate," has ALWAYS meant as long as you are expressing yourself accurately, and that expression is understood, you did it right. Of course, then I went off and became an engineer.
Man I feel called out, I definitely can say that I have had my viewpoint about rules and how important they are changed. It’s been a joke at my DnD table that I’m a textbook rules lawyer, and several times I’ve militantly followed the rules, and pointed out rules mistakes of other players and the DM. Now that I’m DMing some, I think this has been a huge lesson for me. Thanks for the awesome video!
Just as in all arts, you need to know the rules before you try to break them. That's the difference between being clever and being sloppy. You don't need to be 100% accurate in rules or language, but you at least need to care about being clear and consistent in both if you want to avoid frustrating people.
One of the more reliable rules/ruling compromises I use with my groups is, "I'd rather not stop everything to check this. How about we do 'x' now and reference for he next session?" It often works. And Rule of Cool is important too. I like rewarding my players for being creative, fun, and unpredictable.
I think this mentality should pretty much not exist after everyone has internet on their phones. It takes less than 5 minutes to find any rule and any explanation for these rules online.
I wanted to point out that one of the most important functions of the rules is to make sure you are treating your players fairly. DM's that overtly play favorites are also playing fast and loose with the rules and many stories in /r/rpghorrorstories are only possible because a bad DM threw the rules out the window to godmode people. With that said, I agree with your statement that consistency is more important than accuracy and as long as deviations from the rules are done with good intentions, everything is cool!
The best and to my knowledge, only way to stop things like what happens in r/rpghorrorstories from happening is to talk about it ooc, or stop playing with them.
"Mastery is revealed in limitation." I think this point is undersold in this rant. Rules exist to provide structure. That structure then provides meaning to what's created. Too many rules and you become fixated on the form rather than the meaning. But too few and nothing meaningful can be properly formed. Both in language and D&D, rules provide a structure of commonality so that interactions are meaningful. Using those limitations to their fullest is what reveals a true master, who can then transcend those limitations knowing the value they bring. I would argue that without rules or with a disproportionate amount of rulings, D&D isn't as fun because limitation breeds drama.
Grammar and syntax comes after meaning, but they support it and change the way it is perceived. Good grammar and syntax should be invisible, we only react to it when it's bad. Some don't react at all, while others get an almost physically painful reaction. The same should be true for story and rules in roleplaying; the story is supported by the rules (just as our world is supported by rules which physics is trying to understand), but if the rules makes the story not make sense then one should change one and/or the other. It's the communication; as long as everyone agrees on the rules/grammar and syntax, then it is easy to communicate. If someone breakes the rules then communication becomes hard. And because so many people use a common language it's not as easy to just "change a rule" as it is in a game of role-playing with a small group. One should try to keep to the "rules" to avoid taxing others with added mental load (especially when something is one-to-many, like a blog on the internet or a book), but if everyone you communicate with knows the same but different rules then communication is not a problem.
Yeah, exactly this. There needs to be a reason for every deviation, whether it be in language or games. Otherwise you're flailing around being confusing and frustrating. And here's the thing: Sometimes frustration or confusion is the purpose as well, but it still needs to be deliberate.
Something important to note is that the slightest change, where people will understand the meaning anyway, can give something a slightly different meaning. For instance, "wherever he is" carries a slightly different meaning than "where ever he is." The first means that he is somewhere that is unknown, whereas the second implies that he is in a place (whether known or unknown) forever. Tiny rule changes can alter things quite a bit and as a DM you have to be ready to deal with the consequences.
@@beardalaxy this is a great point - and further, you don’t even need to change a single word in a sentence to create this kind of linguistic confusion. To give a crass example, take the sentence “I didn’t screw your mother”’. Say this sentence aloud, and stress a different single word each time. The meaning changes drastically!
I will say that I mostly agree...except for how absolutely Matt said it. "Rules pedants" aren't all waiting like vultures to take pleasure in pointing out an error in the rules, nor are they mutually exclusive with the group of people telling dramatic stories for drama's sake. I have known many people that are rules pedants, not because they enjoy pedantry, but because they honestly believe that everyone has more fun when we all follow the same set of rules. They think the dramatic stories are easier to tell or listen to if we all understand the same set of rules. And, they often take great joy in finding rule combinations that give them a cool combo effect. That isn't joyless, it is simply joy with a different source and expression. Also, the alternative isn't necessarily "confusion". It may be hard feelings when the rules aren't consistently applied (or even just appear not to be.) Or it could be a too harsh ruling that keeps a player from doing a cool thing that should have been allowable by the rules, if only the DM had taken the time to check or ask. After all, bad rulings can ruin a game as much (or more) than strict adherence to a bad rule. (And yes, the people I know who take joy in being 'rules ambassadors' are probably the minority of the Rules Pedants. But, they do exist and deserve to be acknowledged.)
*80s sitcom theme plays* Matt: "What's wrong Tony? Have a bad game?" "Gee Dad, Darren is really hard on me, he's a real rules lawyer. I wish I knew all the rules, I shouldn't even BE a Dungeon Master." Matt: this video
In my experience, rules lawyers are usually* a product adversarial/authoritarian DMs. If you think the DM is out to get you then mastery of the rules is a survival tactic. It shows you how to accomplish what you want without the DM just saying "no" and allows you to rein in some of the DM's malevolent impulses. Sometimes collaborative DMs have to learn how to play with players who learned how to play under adversarial DMs and laying down "we don't play that way" doesn't work because it reinforces the perception of the DM as authoritarian and the player thinks you're just trying to take away their tools. First, offer a rule on how to deal with rules disputes: If it's a matter of immediate life or death for your character we'll stop and figure it out, otherwise we just roll with the ruling and hash it out after the game. On a longer timeline though, you have to build trust so that they can accept that the rulings you make are intended to promote fun, not squash it. Start with something minor that clearly benefits them - a cool home-brewed class, spell, or ability modification. "Your fiend warlock can choose to do fire damage instead of force with their eldritch blast." Build from there. *Some forms of neurodivergence can also make people prone to this, but show them where rule 0 is in the book and then the rest of the remedy is still the same.
I think rules in D&D lend themselves to a sense of verisimilitude and consistency in the game. They mark the difference between a game and collaborative storytelling. That being said, rules can and sometimes should be broken, just consistently and in a way that doesn’t ruin the experience.
I think there is some real flaws in this thinking. It seems to imply that anyone who sees a rule being gotten wrong and says something about it as playing the game wrong and acting maliciously. And tries to do so by painting one broad picture of anyone you might see post a single comment about it. This is ridiculous, and just because you don't see them talking about enjoying the game there and then, doesn't mean they don't. That is bad faith conjecture and sophistry. More importantly, it implies a bad homerule can never make a game bad or unfun. It definitely can. I have sat through games where very confident but very wrong GMs declared that we'd be sticking with their rules and undermine the various systems that relied on the rules the GM had overwritten. This is not to say you shouldn't break a game's rules, but you, ideally, should understand why those rules are there before you break them. James Joyce and Shakespeare broke the rules of grammar because they knew they would be understood without the excluded grammar rules. In a situation where you don't know a rule and don't have time to look it up, making something up is the right answer, I agree with Colville there. But an important point I feel was excluded is to make it clear to the player that this is an in-the-moment, once-off rule. "We'll do it like this for now, I'll look it up later". And tell the players the correct rule next session. Otherwise, the players will often avoid doing the action ever again and never even mention it because, in Matt's example, it involves risks the players don't like when it needen't. Consistency isn't worth it if it's consistently bad. Also you can totally blame the game system for a bad game sometimes. Some systems can turn out to be miserably bad, and misery is best shared. Don't put all that blame and pressure on a GM, that's awful.
I am constantly seeking a nice middle-ground between robust/complex rules and flexible/simple rules. I like deeper game mechanics where you take disparate things and find something really cool by combining them in novel ways. What I don't want is for that depth/complexity to come at the cost of being able to roleplay cool stuff that isn't explicitly on the character sheet. Setting expectations for how to use the rules and how to make good rulings is definitely going in the front of my Game Master's book.
You make a good point. My thinking following the video (regarding good game design) was "as few rules as possible, but with as much provision as possible." Sort of a libertarian mindset. Give the GM the building blocks, and let them run wild. There's no need to dictate every interaction in a system if the rules are well-written. Sure, there are scenarios where specific rulings are required - grappling comes to mind as one such case in D&D - but if your rules are simple, logical, and intuitive, the GM will be able to intuit a valid ruling after growing comfortable with the provided rules.
@@vehmic6278 Took a look and yeah, very 4th edition at its core but with more narrative abstraction and emphasis on character than class. A good read for sure.
In skyrim theirs a mod called frostfall, which adds survival elements. you need food, sleep and to keep warm. its fairly robust and well made. most players find it spices up the game significantly. however it can quickly turn into a chore as your character gets more powerful and you master the mechanics. i think the same happens with alot of tabletops. like the rules for travel, or keeping track of players eating daily.
Having a lot of rules doesn't inherently mean those rules are hard to remember or complicated. Compare Pathfinder 2e which has a lot of rules, but a very very tight framework for those rules. Even if you do need to look something up, the system for something is always concise and simple, and the meanings of everything is codified into Traits, Feats, Actions, and Activities, so there's rarely any confusion. 5E on the other hand, is full of incongruently defined means of conducting various aspects of the game, and no unifying structure for how anything in that game works. Sure, you might need to look things up more with Pathfinder, but you're going to have a much easier time looking them up, and have to do a lot less reading when you do find them than you would with 5e.
The most important thing in language is the same as the most important thing in the rules: a common understanding of usage. When you are having a discussion, you must agree on the meaning of words, especially important ones, otherwise you can talk for hours and never actually communicate. When you are playing 5E D&D, you must agree on the implementation of rules, both official and house, and on the style and flavor of a game, otherwise you can play for hours and never actually have fun.
Cannot like this comment enough. Langue is a tool for expression. And like many thing ps in life, just because you can, doesn’t always mean you should. And this actually cuts both ways for rules as well. Sometimes the rules are just bad, poorly thought out and implemented, or impede play in a way that is distracting and of superficial importance. At other times, your understanding of the rules is likely to be very incomplete and can have far reaching implications that create a myriad of issues that yank you and your players out of the fiction and enjoyment. We are human after all and not perfect beings. The key is to play and understand the rules to the best of your ability that best facilitates the kind of outcomes you are looking for. Rules do matter, language does matter, meaning does matter. But these things change over time, we are adaptable creatures, not mindless automatons. The rules and mechanics exist to facilitate the kinds of experiences that are deemed fun-nothing more and nothing less.
Thanks, that's exactly right. Colville picks some easy examples like "Let's eat Grandma" but not all examples are that easy-- we can look at DnD for the doubly ambiguous "Holy water or powdered silver and iron, which the spell consumes" components, for example; there's no single, obviously correct interpretation of that clause. And when some player casts fog cloud in the middle of a wolf pack, and the DM decides that there is such a thing as double-advantage, the player can easily be, "But negating pack tactics was the whole reason I did that in the first place-- it was a major part of my reasons for learning the spell in the first place." There is a clear analogy between language and rules here. There's no Great Dictionary in the Sky for any of us to consult, and DnD rules are no different. But there is such as thing as shared understandings, even if imperfectly shared, and those are important.
Thank you Colville, for standing up for logic and reason. As you mentioned, the mentality of championing a static universe goes beyond D&D, and sadly the U.S. is in a state of crisis because of it. I can't think of anyone who would not benefit from this video. Thank you.
Thank you for all of your wonderful videos Matt - I was feeling very demotivated during my first campaign that I stopped running consistently in June, and all your videos have me getting the itch once more!
I was one of those people who constantly corrected others in spelling and grammar, even in casual environments like Instant Messages and chat rooms (remember those?). It's almost no coincidence that when I started getting burned out with 3rd Edition's complex network of rules sometime in the mid 2000s and realized how much people have come to over-rely on rules over the DM's judgements (as I am a perpetual DM of 25 years myself), I subconsciously stopped being such a language elitist and just allowed people make all the mistakes they want. I'll still occasionally point out spelling and grammar mistakes when I spot them (usually the more egregious ones), but most of the time, I just keep it to myself. Unless, of course, I'm specifically asked to proof-read something, in which case the red pen comes out of retirement. ;)
@@bitghost4700 Oh? I did have to go in and add -ed after a particular word, but please prove to the world how skilled you are and point out mistakes in a RUclips comment. EDIT: I don't care if I make mistakes in a RUclips comment as much, especially since I tend to change thoughts or sometimes lose attention since I'm listening to the video. Also, I may have come off as exceedingly snarky as I'm working at the moment, so I'll just apologize now for the unnecessary tone, but I still stand by the intent of my words, not the severity. :)
Agree mostly but an exception to this that I've found is for groups with multiple DMs. Our Westmarches-ish campaign has 4 people DMing, and we agreed early on that we would be playing strictly RAW so we could avoid instances of a character being allowed to do something in one DM's campaign and not in another's because of different rulings. But even then the main goal wasn't because the rules are sacred or always perfect, and there have been some times when we didn't like RAW and made notes to change them in the next campaign, but to avoid frustration from both DMs and players so everyone knew how the game worked no matter who was at the table.
I think this goes to Matt’s comment on consistency. By all adhering to the rules more strictly, you can stay consistent across gm’s and maintain the local realism of the world you’re playing in. Thinking of the rules as language still makes sense. If multiple writers worked on the same book, you would want them to speak the same dialect and use words in the same ways in order to maintain the consistency of the main characters’ personalities and speech patterns, and in order to make the transitions between chapters as seamless as possible. Maybe a better way to describe this would be multiple actors playing the same character. If two separate film adaptations of Batman were being produced with two different casts, the best way to make them feel like they take place in the same universe would be to adhere as strictly as possible to the comics. It’s not because the comics are particularly virtuous, it’s simply because they’re the most complete style guide for how batman should be.
I too have a West Marches-ish campaign! Ours is on Discord. We've done much the same, sticking to RAW as much as we are capable. Like you said, this is rather important with multiple DMs. That's why I enjoy having a plain and straightforward RAW game, as well as a home game where I'm able to express a story in a fun and satisfying way without having to overly worry about the rules.
This is a good thing to point out. I bailed on a westmarch style campaign because there was one GM in particular who ran combat differently than just about everybody else and severely punished martials/short rest characters with his style. Would have been nice if he could have gotten reigned in by the other GMs to be consistent with how others did things.
I am in Westmarch campaign and we don't stick to RAW very often at all, but I think there is a lot of discussion with DM's concerning rules. Each DM does have their own style so there is certainly some inconsistency over how they apply the rules (which is inevitable unless you go RAW) , but it was never different enough to effect how the game was played. I think not doing RAW can work in a westmarch so long as there is a good communication between DM's and players and a general. I think you can do either butnot going RAW and making it work is likely a fair bit more effort but I think personally it is worth it. In conclusion, Westmarches are great. Would recommend to anyone who has yet to play in one.
As someone who speaks multiple languages at differing levels of fluency, I can truly say it boils down to whether or not you can communicate clearly. I've mixed languages and used hand gestures to help get a point across, akin in many ways to splicing pieces of several TTRPGs to make a rule on the fly. I then go home and look up the words I didnt know so I can better create sentences in the future. If I had let my lack of knowledge of a word or phrase stop me from communicating, I wouldnt have gotten very far in language. If you let a lack of knowing a rule prevent you from creating something that works temporarily... youll have a hard time DMing
As a DM who has moved from 5e to pathfinder/3.5, I do miss having the fluidity the system invites to the game, less conflict between DM and player on how things work and what rules are what back win 5e. But I wish to point out one thing that has been different sense the shift. My players seem more interested in trying to do more kinds of things. Perhaps it's just the players, but I've seen more cases of a player wanting to do something, often after finding out there were rules for it. A player wanting to make a captain America style shield throwing, Gun Buckler welding fighter character, or a player wanting to be a Magic Item crafting Magus (which might just be so he can make sure he gets the magic items he wants), or most of all 2 of my players wanting to found a kingdom because they found out there were rules for it, and feel that the campaign they are playing in has a good opportunity to use those rules. Non of these kinds of player characters and actions appeared in my games in the past, until I started using a rules system that openly told players "you can do this, and here is how it works". My point being there is some point to having rules as a means to promote players doing things, I've had players play 5e who got there characters killed doing nothing because I quote "the rules don't say I can do that." and even after trying to be clear that you can attempt anything you think you could do, it doesn't click for all people. I wish playing a system that had the rules to promote more player ideas and concepts didn't have to come at the cost of a DM's sanity being constantly called out and hounded about the rules. I feel once I finish these Pathfinder campaigns (running two at once) I will probably ether take what I learned from Pathfinder and return to 5e, expanded and learned, or I'll have learned how to handle the system in a fashion that doesn't make me go mad.... I felt like I had a point making this but now I feel like I'm just ranting, anyway, I guess at the least I'll share this text for the algorithm or what ever excuse people make.
I would strongly recommend Pathfinder 2e, it keeps the larger amount of content and more in depth rules, but also takes notes from 5e on simplicity and intuitiveness. You can make genuinely interesting builds, and the versatility of the feat and 3 action systems really creates an engaging and fluid experience. I built a Champion (paladin, but more versatile) which I designed to be an AC machine. In any other system, it would have been boring to play, but the 3 action system allowed me to break my “Move, Raise Shield, Take Cover, (Wait for enemy attacks to spend my reaction)” in favor of more interesting activities. Despite building such a formulaic and repetitive character, I had more fun playing that character than any other I’ve played before.
I'm torn on 5e. As a DM I like the simplicity, as a player I don't feel like any character I make feels unique and worse I don't feel like my choices are really significant like they were in previous editions. If I can (try to) do anything not covered by the rules it either isn't something unique to my character choices or my DM had to come up (and maybe playtest) the rule on their own which isn't easier.
as an old forever pathfinder DM I getcha completely. I ended up just trying to keep the world rules consistent and if a player wanted to do something whack they were responsible for maintaining those rule systems themselves (which they did happily funny enough). Playing physically helps this though, idk how online dms cope.
I think your experience only strengthens his point! A more robust set of rules gives all players a more firm grasp of the language they need to use to attempt things. To know that there is already a rule puts more confidence in a players decisions
If you haven't heard of it, I'd recommend having a look at Open Legend. It's designed so every action is vaguely defined, encouraging players to explore ways they can flavor their characters' abilities. Invoking "slowed" on an enemy halves their movement speed, but that can be done by casting a time spell or by throwing caltrops. It excites the imagination while staying open-ended enough to be bent to the table's needs.
I totally agree, yet interestingly enough I’m also someone who thinks the system we use is important. Some RPGs give rules for overcoming challenges, some for setting up scenes, some attempt to create drama, others comedy. I’ve trying to reconcile my belief that “it’s not always important to follow the rules” and “rules are important because (depending on the system) they can create interesting, specific experiences.” And I think what I was missing was thinking of the system as a language. I’ve often thought of the rules as “tools” but I think thinking of them as “a language” is much more useful.
The phrase "Rulings, Not Rules" comes from the OSR (Old School Renaissance), a subculture within D&D that had a lot of influence on the development of 5e. More specifically, it comes from Matt Finch's free Quick Primer for Old School Gaming.
Hi. As a Pathfinder-playing rules-focuser, I think a major reason why I and my friends like the rules-heavy approach is that it gives the world a sense of consistency that we can plan for. By understanding how the world works, we can adapt and make smart decisions to overcome our foes. In a sense, it makes the whole game a giant puzzle to crack. That doesn't mean the GM has to 100% abide by everything (especially if they need to rule something on the fly like "make a Reflex save"), but the rules act as an essentially neutral arbiter to make things feel fair - success or failure wasn't dependent on whether the GM decided to let the players win or not.
I think that the negative view of this is that you are saying that PF becomes a puzzle game for the players. This is analogous to playing a board game. Are you actually roleplaying with the view of your characters of the world? Can they know those rules?
@@paulsnowuk We roleplay plenty outside of combat. In combat, the stakes get a lot higher and there is already a big element of randomness from the dice. The character may not in-universe understand the full intricacies of the five-foot-step, but they DO understand how fighting works and how to do it effectively, and they want to win.
@@michaelramon2411 So in-universe, they live in a world where movment is quantised into 5-foot segments? They manipulate a world with that nature to it? Doesn't this show the rules are only a tools to help model what's going on. You can't take them seriously as a 100% true representation of the nature of the world.
Thank you. You're the reason I'm not a bad gm (I hope) love you Matt. The good times you've inspired me to have have been great. I really appreciate it. Now I'm in my freshman year of college and trying to start a game over at college. Thank you for helping me have hours of fun for me and according to them my players.💙💙💙
One thing I want to point out is that in discussions of rules, at least as I see them, are usually like linguists, not like grammar pedant. Sure, one comment will be just blatant "do that cuz that how it supposed to be", but most of the time, people offer interpretations and why they make them. I really like the kind of rules advice that is "here is how this looks rules-as-written to me, however I would rule X because at my table we go for tone Y". You learn a lot this way.
I like this perspective on the matter, and actually, as a DM, I profondly when I say to my players "Well, here is the rule as written, here is how I understand it. If you can convince me that I can interpret the rule in a way that lets you do what you intend the way you intend to do it, then you can try it your way". I enjoy debate about rules, as long as they are not one hour long.
Lotta good points made here and I agree with the overall idea! I do wish you had made an analogy to language that better represents the way grammar actually works. The most common reason that the pedants and prescriptivists are wrong isn't because rules can be broken; it's because prescriptivists are using the **wrong** rules. To use your example, the prescriptivist thinks that "to boldly go where no man has gone before" is grammatically incorrect. It isn't. This is verifiable if you look at the evidence, and looking at the evidence is what scientists (in this case, linguists) do. The lesson here isn't that splitting an infinitive is incorrect-but-effective-for-communicating. The lesson here is that split infinitives are, and always have been, grammatical in English. Meanwhile, very few people indeed are going around breaking **actual** grammar rules of English. To steal a few examples from Steven Pinker... When was the last time you heard someone say "Apple the eats boy," or "The child seems sleeping," or "Who did you go to see John and?" It almost never happens, and it when it does we all immediately laugh at ourselves and realize that's not quite what we meant to say. The true grammar of our native language is something we *do* follow, because... that's what it means to be the true grammar. All this might make for less of a convenient analogy to D&D... but I care about it. I care about it because I used to be a prescriptivist (blame my teachers), and because linguistics is fascinating and touches so much of our lives and understanding how language *actually* works is well worth it.
I think there's two big factors that play into people's temperament on rules & language. As players, the "optimizer" tends to hang on to every word and turn of phrase, because they are trying to exploit every last number of advantage from it. As DMs, particularly with lower levels of experience, it's easy to lean on the minutae of the rules because learning how to make quick rulings that reflect the spirit of the rules and maintain balance is just something that takes practice.
I think this video is basically the reason I prefer DMing for new players. If they don't know the rules, they aren't constrained by them. This leads to fewer objections and more creativity.
In response to "There is no reward for running the game 100% by the rules..." That isn't the point, at least for me. And in no way do I run the game 100% by the rules. But, some of us just enjoy knowing there is a rule. Matt has said it before. He will print off an edited map of broken spire keep so when his players say "well isn't that convenient" he can say "it's all right here" and show that is what would happen. The language might be about communicating, but the rules are about determining WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. That's why we have them.
Brilliant video Matt!!! I DM'ed my first game 33 years ago. The years of thinking about and playing have taught me: Roleplaying is communication. All the way. All the time. You are 100% right.
Matt! I employed Orcs Attack yesterday! A party of gnolls started slowly hunting the party as they traversed the mountains. It was tense and dramatic and it made the session awesome! Love the videos!
I've seen rule zero used to railroad and just in general beat the PCs into submission by many different GMs. So rules in my opinion give the PCs a leg to stand on versus that abuse.
It can be difficult to recognize an unhealthy playing environment when you're in the middle of it. Many players will persevere because bad D&D is often preferable to no D&D. But in cases like this, no amount of rules will salvage a game being run by a jerk.
Listening to Matt talk about D&D is a lot like watcging Bob Ross paint. It starts out making perfect sense, but then he says something that doesn't seem right. But sure enough, if you watch until the end, the stroke that seemed out of place makes perfect sense, and actually adds way more than you could've ever expected.
I'd call myself a joyful pedant, personally. I still consider 3.5 to be my favorite edition because of the rules. My favorite thing to do as the DM is go through all the available class, feat, and template options so that I can make fun custom monsters for my players to fight. Spending 6 hours on a Sunday afternoon to build a 30 second fight was my hobby and I enjoyed it.
Absolutely no offense meant by this. But to me that sounds absolutely miserable. I barely have 3 hours in a week to plan the entire game. Wasting 6 on 1 encounter? I would probably kill myself. Again, thats just my perception
@@flowonthego oh yeah because I don't sleep, work, go to classes, eat, use the bathroom, exercise, talk with friends or family, drive anywhere, or consume any other forms of entertainment during the week. Some of us have lives dude. Edit: I also forgot to mention, you know, running the actual game. Which in itself takes 5 hours a week. And I run 2 games, so that's actually 10 hours. Then if I prep for 3 hrs each that's another 6 hours.
I don’t usually comment on videos, but I am compelled by this video to do so. Bravo on this video. I am impressed to find this on Matt’s channel. If my local D&D groups adopted this philosophy, I would be playing more 5e. Thanks for doing this video.
Couldn't agree more. Was literally just discussing this on the insanity that is twitter. It's a shared experience, not a sausage making machine. I can run an entire campaign with a six-sided die or coin to flip, imagination, and common sense.
When it comes to language, I think it's also important to think about what's being communicated by grammar and spelling outside of the actual content. When I read a paper in which the writer consistently misspells the name of a key figure in the field, or of an important concept, I'm not concerned because I don't know what they mean; rather, I'm concerned because, if the writer had spent enough time with the material to have something meaningful to say about it, they probably would have learned how to spell it.
I've found that Pathfinder is a breeze to play with a good autosheet. It lists all the relevent numbers and dynamically updates everything when i make a tweak to it. I can pick up a random weapon in a fight, look up its damage dice, input that and the weapon type and all the relevent info is calculated and ready to use. There's still looking up specific rules, but those become isolated incidents within otherwise pretty smooth play. And, with pathfinder, its incredibly easy to look up a specific rule online and find it within 20 seconds instead of scouring a book for it. That being said, I'm also playing in a game that tends to avoid some of the really complicated stuff like grappling. Its just not something my character or the enemies do. The most common thing slowing down fights is indecision because of the complex encounter, which I think of as just playing the game (until we start running in circles).
I’m a player and DM that loves rules and and definitely still loves storytelling. A DM with a strong grasp of the rules means that when I play and do something special within the games reality (created and governed by the rules) I feel like I really earned it, because I played my character well within the bounds of that reality, not just because my DM thought it was cool. To me it makes the world feel real.
I love this post. Rules as semiotics, especially in the RPG context. Made me think of the grammar of a given table/group, and how new players to those environments have to navigate this unique grammar. Eventually they even shape that grammar, and the group now has a new language. Thanks for such a powerful lens to improve my DM toolkit!
I did the ruling vs rules thing in 3E a lot. When it would speed up the play, I would just say, sure you can do that, it will give you +2 on your to hit. And we moved on without looking up the exact rule.
While the spirit of the suggestion is great, having a good grasp of the rules is a great tool for any DM. From understanding what is possible for your characters rules-wise, to check possible problems before they ruin your session. I had a DM that didn't allow the rogue to sneak attack most of the times because he didn't understand the Sneak Attack rules or other not allowing a spell a player was enthusiastic about because he didn't understand it. DMs should have a good grasp of the rules, at least to the extent of understanding their intentions and the possibilities open for the players.
I mean, if that was happening consistently over the course of a few sessions, that DM should have sat down and figured out what was going on with their player's abilities rather than saying "no you can't use it." If not, those players should sit their DM down and say "this is ridiculous, this is how it works, learn it so I can use it." If this was just one session, then the player who knew what was going on should have given a quick summary of what their ability was. Especially Sneak Attack. That is both simple to learn and simple to teach. This situation seems to fully come down to a lack of communication between DM and player, which is a much deeper issue than the type of language being used to communicate.
I think Matt has mentioned in a video (I could be wrong - not trying to put words in his mouth) it should be the player explaining how player abilities work if the DM doesnt remember; the DM has enough to worry about with all the rest of the game. If the DM is ignoring the player attempting to explain (and I would assume both your example players did try) then that isn't just ignoring the rules, its ignoring the players. TLDR: the DM should understand the main rules and should be able to rely on players to know their class.
@@Eric_The_Cleric in the sneak attack case, we had to stand our ground. I served as rules lawyer for the rogue player and it heated up before getting some consent.
@@stealthington True, but the DM should understand enough of the rules to correctly award the players for using their options rules-wise. There is a level of player's agency based on the understanding the players have of the rules of their characters, a DM should account this.
When you know the rules of a language well enough to break them and still get your message across then you have mastered that language When you know the rules of D&D (or any other RPG) well enough to break them and you and your players still have fun you have mastered that system ...perfect or complete knowledge is impossible, but a robust and well designed system, or language will allow you to leverage your incomplete knowledge
This is one of the most important things to understand in most creative endeavours imo. Helped me a lot professionally. I don't approach my GMing as a big W Writer, I approach it as a game designer, but as a game designer I know the rules are there for structuring the creation of entertainment, not for the omnicient observer that knows what rules I broke when I entertained my players
I think why people freak out when you do not exactly follow the rules is because they view it as a social contract under which you have all agreed to work under. If you are willing to break the social contract of the rules what part of the social contract might you break next? The solution is of course to communicate with your players to make sure you all agree on how you are gonna play this game.
That's an interesting point but I can see holes in it. (Note: I'm not trying to use your language in a mocking way, just trying to refer to the point you've made!) In game, if a DM makes a ruling that favours the party the players are much less likely to "freak out", even if that's breaking the rules (social contract) just as much. Not saying it doesn't happen, but definitely less. And in the context of an audience viewing the game (who often you will see freak out about rulings that favour the party), what concern do they have? That the DM is going to break the social contract outside the context of D&D? That seems far fetched. "Oh he gave disadvantage despite flanking, so I'm worried he's going to run a phone scam?" Maybe that's not a great example of breaking the social contract. Licking a spoon and putting it back in the drawer?
The first and foremost social contract is that it is the DMs domain, who then serves the players needs. The DM can't break nothing because the DM sets everything lol.
@@ianp7054 I HATE it when the DM ignores rules in a way that favors the party. I hate it so much. It makes me feel like the entire reason for the parties success in that situation came down to DM fiat. Why did we even bother rolling dice or trying in good faith to overcome the problem if the DM is just going to hand wave and make sure we succeed no matter what. I want successes and failures to both feel earned in the same way. Follow the rules, please.
I bought the Strongholds and Followers PDF and I am really enjoying it so far. Your insights have been very helpful for me in running, and designing, games with my brother. I hope you are all doing well and I look forward to watching more of y'alls videos.
I'd say that great writers have a tremendous knowledge of grammar, spelling, syntax. They sometimes choose to break those rules, but they know them backward and forward
I feel a lot of this comes down to the old problem: player trust and dm power. Because the DM will always, always have the power in any in-game situation. There is no way around that. It's part of the system, and it needs to be considered when it comes to things like this. The rules are one of the few things that give the players power, usually against the challenges and enemies the DM sets. So it can be very easy for the player to feel like the DM is ruling against them in their own favor and doing so by taking away a right they feel the rules give them. That's why it is so important that rulings are fair and consistent, that players trust their DM isn't trying to win against them and that the DM is not favoring their own monsters in rulings. Because once players feel like they have to win in a fight? Good luck getting anyone to stop arguing the rules.
That's exactly what my dad always said "The purpose of language is to communicate." For this reason he was happy with people using the grammatically incorrect term "Yous" when referring to multiple people, as historically the plural was "you" and the singular was "thou". With "Thou" falling out of favour, in favour of "you" as the singular, there was a communication opening for a new word referring to multiple people... "guys" is fine too.
@@stealthington Absolutely... and if you're Australian/British it's also perfectly acceptable and friendly in adult company to just say "how ya doin, C***s". As long as the intention is clear to everyone it's a win.
This really fits in with a book I’ve been working through called Finite and Infinite Games by James Carse which has provided a whole new way to look at both games as well as life as something that is played and how we interact with the “rules”. The language analogy fits with it a lot, really cool.
This seems quite possibly inspired by a bit by Stephen Fry called "Language", which you can find on RUclips as well - he makes a lot of similar points there and it's also a great little rant. Check it out if you want to hear more examples of language rules.
"They whip out their Sharpies and take away and add apostrophes from public signs, shake their heads at prepositions which end sentences and mutter at split infinitives and misspellings, but do they bubble and froth and slobber and cream with joy at language? Do they ever let the tripping of the tips of their tongues against the tops of their teeth transport them to giddy euphoric bliss? Do they ever yoke impossible words together for the sound-sex of it? Do they use language to seduce, charm, excite, please, affirm and tickle those they talk to? Do they? I doubt it. They’re too farting busy sneering at a greengrocer’s less than perfect use of the apostrophe. Well sod them to Hades. They think they’re guardians of language. They’re no more guardians of language than the Kennel Club is the guardian of dogkind." - Stephen Fry
Excellent video. I read this quote in a book a while ago (not related to games) and went something like "grammar and syntax are like a pair of crutches. Once you are fully fit, you throw them away."
Well done my friend, I am a 7th grade LA teacher and I express this to my students all the time. I am not worried about the grammar or spelling when they are trying to write, but the way they are trying to convey the meaning of their story. You are an amazing human Mr. Colville, and you wealth of knowledge and understanding of human nature is a breath of fresh air.
Some of the best moments from games that I have run came from me making rulings on the fly. But I disagree that wanting to hew closely to the rules makes someone a joyless pedant. The rules don't just represent language, but the limitations of a universe. D&D is a shared story, so mutual understanding of the universe is vital to that enterprise. Someone arguing for the rules is defending their understanding of the universe, and therefore defending their enjoyment of the game. If everyone can agree that a ruling seems fair, great. But if not, DM fiat over rules as written can lead to confusion and frustration, especially if it happens a lot. One of my players is neuro-divergent. I am a different kind of neuro-divergent. We see and experience the world differently than each other, and from neuro-typical people. Sticking to the rules as closely as we can ensures that we can play together and with other people with as little friction as possible. Calling us joyless pedants is unkind.
If a DM consistently overrides RAW, especially to the detriment of the players, and without discussing these changes in advance, then that is a problem. That problem usually occurs because the DM has adopted a competitive mentality. Unless such a mentality is agreed upon by everyone, it's very unhealthy for a game of D&D, and it is a violation of the social contract. Likewise, players who adopt a competitive mentality, calling out their DM or arguing over the rules, are also violating the social contract. It isn't the act of sticking to the rules that makes you a joyless pedant. It is the underlying need to confront others about the rules. Calling out and actively discussing problematic behaviors is not unkind. It is the responsibility of the DM, and it is how adults handle conflicts. As for neurodiversity, I greatly appreciate the intent behind the term. I am considered neuro-divergent. Normalizing differences is very important, and it should be encouraged. No one should feel abnormal or be labeled as such. But let's be realistic here: from a practical standpoint, the term is mostly meaningless because we all see and experience the world differently. It isn't as if all neurotypical people are a monolithic hive mind who all experience the world the same way. Viewing the world differently isn't an acceptable excuse for game ruining behaviors, and acting as if calling out those behaviors is discriminatory is a cop out.
@@proteuswest1084 I appreciate the time you took to respond. I disagree with pretty much everything you said. But I don't have the energy to argue, so I'm gonna walk away.
I don’t think Matt is necessarily calling you a joyless pedant. You’ve expressed a reason for sticking closely to the rules that helps you and your table enjoy the game. As far as I’ve interpreted, the people who are joyless pedants are those who stick to the rules for no other reason than that they are the *rules* and thus must be followed. That certainly wouldn’t include you and your friends based on what you’ve said.
“Sticking to the rules as closely as we can ensures that we can play together and with other people with as little friction as possible. Calling us joyless pedants is unkind.” I would suggest you go back and give the video a rewatch without this thought in your mind, and you might realize that nowhere did he call what you described as joyless pedant and in fact he’s advocating for the common language you’ve developed.
I think there is a genuine and equivalent amount of fun found in navigating the puzzle of DnD rules as there is in telling any story I've had the pleasure in writing. Part of the responsibility of a DM is to provide the most fun to both types of players, tactical players and narrative players. Disregarding rules of DnD remove any distinction between any other RPG system. Additionally, I believe limitations breed creativity, so being limited by rules can lead to equally rewarding epic moments for the players to experience. In short, yes, adapt to unique circumstances to continue the flow of the game, no, following rules as written is not immediately unfun.
While I largely agree with everything said, I think this fails to consider that some people design entire characters within the well-understood and documented rules of the game, that building a good result within understood and defined constraints can feel rewarding. And seeing someone ignore the rules and the dm go along with it to do things your own character wasn't capable of doing sucks. (or more specifically, you thought about doing *that very thing* but the rules didn't support it so you built your character in a different way weeks ago). For example, the current rules on dual wielding sucks in 5e. Its not a good option when all things are considered. So I decide I'm not going to make a dual wielder. Now my permissive DM is letting the other guy do things that normally wouldn't be allowed, that guy gets to play the dual wielder that I originally wanted to because they're both ignoring specific rules that makes dual wielding suck. The solution is to ask the DM to bend the dual wielding rules during or roughly around the time of session 0, but sometimes DMs themselves don't know the rules, don't know that the rules around dual wielding suck, etc. I've had DMs tell me they go by the rules, but they themselves don't understand the rules particularly well and then have to make 'rulings' at session 5 because they never understood the base rules. So the proposed solution would have failed there. Another example would be mounted combat, more or less the same base problem as dual wielding in that the rules around it make it suck. So I decide I'm not going to build a lance-wielding paladin. I decide to make another different character. But then at session 8 I suddenly find the paladin has decided he's going to be a jouster and he's having a ton of fun I missed out on potentially having. I can't make a jouster too, that's just a "me too" action and going "me too" is pretty lame in general. All that being said, saying "you shouldn't be able to do that" when someone is potentially having fun is probably the 100% incorrect response. But some rules do have good reason to exist. (just not the ones I called out here)
Matt, I agree with most of what you said. I draw the line at commas though. We need them to communicate clearly. Plus, pauses in sentences can create drama! Please don't discourage the use of the humble comma.
I like having a book full of rules to cover every possible situation. There's nothing in the world I like more, except perhaps ignoring 90% of them. Those would seem contradictory, but it's a game that appeals to both the rules lawyer and the winging-it DM alike. I hate having a rules lawyer at the table, but I absolutely love that they can play the same game in their own way. Most people find the wilderness encounters boring compared to massive dungeons, but I enjoy games where the characters are struggling through the journey. To each their own, yeah?
As a player, I like rules for a different reason that the video presumes. I like them because they give me a framework in which I can plan out my character's abilities beyond a simple one-time use of them, as well as tie the group's abilities in that. I like to design and evaluate "combos", explore synergies, think about which "moves" my character would make. Rules help me evaluate different action and ability combinations outside of the gaming table, then come to the table prepared - with a plan for many situations my characters might find themselves in.
As a writer who has a full time job proofreading, I totally agree with this assessment. At the start of my job, I was so hyper-focused on syntax, grammar, etc, that my anxiety spilled over into how I was learning 5e. It's only in recent years where I've stopped taking the rules of DnD (and arguably my job) quite so seriously that not only are my games infinitely more fun for everyone, but I'm also way more jazzed to write creatively at the end of a working day.
I think one of the biggest example of this is Jeremy Crawford and Chris Perkins running the Acquisition Inc. games. They literally wrote the rules (with a large team behind them of course), and for all that creating the rules is their job, they very clearly play the game for the players to have fun (even Wil Weaton, sore as he is about the whole acid pit thing). My favorite parts of those games are where they crack up because the things the players choose to attempt against the backdrop of they created for the games. And I fully recognize that the Acq. Inc. games are more entertainment than useful ways to learn the game, they very clearly show that D&D and TTRPG's are about having fun with friends. The very same reason I have followed Critical Role. Much as I love Matt and the gang, what they do is equally about the entertainment and not just D&D. Of course it helps that they are entertainers by profession, which elevates their game and the entertainment value of the stories they've told. The Chain is far more D&D and less entertainment, but it is still a group of friends playing in a world to have fun (even when that looks like choosing between dying quickly or dying slowly.)
Grammar and the preservation of grammar are important because the point of written words is communication that exists in permanence. If I didn't care about it lasting forever, or at least a long time, I would just say it; it's quicker. However, if we do not write with correct and reasonable grammar (i.e. grammar that preserves a rational system so future usage can be intuited), it starts to wither on the vine and loses its ability to be enjoyed by people who don't share our cultural space. It's something of a magical thing that you can hear a word that you've never heard before and understand exactly what it means. The reason for that grammar. Grammar is an innate sense of understanding we bring to langauge. It is the cypher we need to make sense of language. Otherwise, we'd have to make up sentence structure every time and establish what structure we are using with our interlocutors. So, we need to preserve this structure and through pedantry if necessary. We need to be able to understand the past and communicate with the future and if we don't preserve grammar (and logically structured grammar) that doesn't become impossible, but it becomes inaccessable to the majority of people. That's why 18th century philosophy (designed for elite consumption) is more accessable than 16th century theatre (designed for mass consumption). Beyond that, there are so many cool things you can do with grammar. "Ich schau' dich hinterher" translates into English roughly as "I look back at you as you are in the place from which I am leaving." Because grammar lets you convey information more efficiently, so four words become that. Ich (I) schau (look) dich (at you) hinter (behind) her (indicating direction travelling from). Because of this reason, grammar becomes the engine of eloquence. It determines how things can be said and also gives you the means to subvert expectations -- because there are standard expectations to subvert. I get it. It's a lot of work to make an undertaking correct-- an idea of correctness that some may even scoff at in its existence. And doubly so if you try to make a grammatically incorrect work correct after the fact. But I don't think people like Shakespeare didn't care about grammar. He played with it too much to be indifferent to it. I think most writers worth their reputation can see grammar for what it is: a tool for conveying information. If a person is really concerned with conveying emotion, then why would they ignore one of the most powerful tools they have? Because some adolescent rebellion against confromity? I don't buy that. I don't think its rational that people like Shakespeare who has been supremely influential in the English language was completely uncaring about the rules of language. I don't believe most authors are like that. Because if they weren't then the langauge wouldn't endure as it has. These people are the models of our appreciation of our own languages. So if they were uniformally uninterested in grammar, then grammar would cease to be important. Because they're the ones communicating with us from the past.
I mean, 3rd edition was tedious, but I've never seen players less imaginative or less invested than in 5th edition. Not even in other systems. It doesn't matter if they are experienced or new, if I'm the DM or not, or what the setting is. There's such a difference. 5th edition just does something to suck all the life out of players. Even I feel it. I don't know what's wrong exactly, but I do know something's off. I've been playing RPGs for over 20 years and I've never seen anything shut players down like 5th edition. Two years ago, I ran 3.5 for a few players who usually can't be bothered to even name their characters. It was like they were different people. They were all animated, had detailed backstories, constantly talking about the game outside the game. They would gush about their characters and even their builds and the cool shit people were doing. I've had the same thing happen with 4th edition, Shadowrun, Pathfinder, Kids on Bikes, the Marvel Universe Roleplaying system, the Robotech RPG, and the various 40k RPGs. If I had to guess at the root cause, I would say having to make constant spot rulings annihilates immersion way more than frequently looking up a rules.
I will defend 5th edition to this extent its way more accessible than other versions of DnD and has brought a lot of new players to the hobby. However, I have also seen players with experience in other game systems ultimately be disappointed with 5e though I can't put my finger on it either. Maybe there is a blandness to it? Maybe it's too low risk for the players? Not sure.
@@michaelduke9057 I think the "accessibility" is a function of the problem. In my experience, it's not so much that people pick up the game faster, it's that you don't have to understand the mechanics to play.
@@VegtamTheWonderer I agree it's a tradeoff. At this point, I feel as though naked 5e is underwhelming in a lot of ways, but it's designed so that a beginner can pick it up and learn it easily. Once you have a player trained on the D&D mentality, I think they're due for a switch. 5e is just the launchpad to the next thing. Whether that means 3e, 4e, or some of the crunchier 5.5e supplements is not for me to say. However, I really enjoy the idea that 5e is the core of a modular experience, so you can add crunchier "modules" onto it once players get acclimated to the basics. (I'm very into modding/optimizing parts of 5e to have the kind of crunch it's missing, without losing its simplicity and flexibility.)
I've had the opposite experience lol Haven't been around as long but I had the displeasure of playing in a pathfinder game and everyone (me and every other player who gets really into character and rp) was bored and playing was a pain. Turns out having to spend 6 hours to make a character and stopping the game every 5 minutes to check if player A can lift the rock player B can jump the chasm is tedious and terribly unfun.
@@photografo9240 I only see pathfinder 1 and DND 3.5 get bogged down when people keep trying to do stupid crap nobody in that situation would even consider, like trying to actually do a Fastball Special or something stupid like that. Usually I just ask, "why would your character possibly think that's the best option?" once and people stop doing that kind of garbage and stunlocking the game trying to stretch the rules to do something obviously nonsense. Or if in a goofball game, nobody cares what the rule is anyway and we go back to making it up on the fly.
Great video, thank you so much for all the videos. This channel has been the single greatest resource for myself as a DM. Whether it be insight on something, leaning something, or simply being given confidence on something by you.
I like the feeling of a fair fight. I have no issue with/as a GM making up stuff before the battle. I just like it being fair once set in motion. Rules allow fair fights, and add pleasure. I like knowing the rules to be consistent. But if the GM doesn't care I won't argue.
Consistency is key. A DM once ruled their dragons are vulnerable to lightning. That's fine. I chose spells accordingly. Then we came across another dragon, same colour, same age, but he was immune to lightning. Reason? "Well this one just has it." If you, as a DM, are training your players on your custom enemies, please do not penalize them when they learn your custom enemies.
Yeah, there's a limit though. I just played a session where a player tried to steer one ship in to another to crush a sea creature, in the astral sea. What are the rules for that? DM made a ruling, there were some rolls, and it was an awesome moment we'll talk about in the future.
@@ianp7054 "What are the rules for that?". Depends on the system surely? Some systems could have rules for hitting with vehicles, some won't. I'm saying that the rule existing is always better. Because it allows it to be a balanced choice and helps solidify consistency within the system. A choice made by designers will always be more balanced and consistent then a choice made by me on the fly. Doesn't mean I don't believe in improvising, if I don't know the rule (or it doesn't exist) I must. But knowing the correct rule is significantly better.
I didn't expect to get life advice when I clicked this video, but thank you for the reminder, Matt, about the rules of a language. I am a bit of a pedant when it comes to language, and I frequently correct people when they make mistakes. I really don't need to, and it is good to hear the reasons one more time explained so eloquently.
Someone going to another person's game and telling them 'you aren't playing it right' is acting the part of an ass. I wish I could remember who said this, just a tickle in the back of my memory so I'll have to paraphrase a lot, but I remember hearing someone on youtube say "Some people need help getting to the point of seeing DnD as real. They use random tables and strict rules as their way of convincing themselves that what happens has meaning, and we CANNOT just leave them behind." I've got two buddies who have taken every single official sourcebook in 3.5 and merged it with first edition pathfinder. Last time they sent me their google doc of the system they made, it was hundreds of pages of balance tweaks and rule changes. I don't play DnD with them because I find no joy in how hardcore every single ruling needs to be, but last I checked they were having a good time. They have stories to tell of things that happened, and each story includes how they used the rules to build up the scenario that occurred. Seems a bit silly to tell them 'you aren't playing it right'
This video is good summary of how you teached me to feel more comfortable while running D&D, because at the beginning I was trying to be so strict to the rules (which resulted having bad time for all) and after listenting to your videos on my way to work/home i builded up more confidence in just making on the fly things that will suit the action more if I and my players are not sure how rules will deal with our shenanigans. So thanks
I call myself a rules monkey because I like knowing the rules and believe they help facilitate fun. If I'm a player and I notice an inconsistency I've developed a habit of asking if it was an intentional choice for something to work x way.(not in a rude way of course, just so I know if I should drop the issue or not) Most of the time its been an error and things are corrected. I like to keep things fair on both sides of the table. Of course if the dm is clear about certain rulings I never push it.
Really great video. I had the advantage of DMing pre first edition. I learned to DM by understanding the underlying intent of the game. My groups had a wonderful time playing in second edition and I remember a time when the players were navigating a ledge in a cavern and had to leap across several small breaks. I just told them "don't roll a one". The players suddenly feared their situation as seriously as facing a dragon and cheered each success. I knew would allow a last ditch grasp of the ledge if they failed and that there was water at the bottom, but they didn't. I finally stopped DMing for a while in 3rd edition because players seemed to want rules over fun and there were too many books to keep track of the rules. This all reminds me of freshman English in college. I had a teacher correct a paper I had written. I went to her and argued that I had written a part intentionally "wrong" to make a point. After convincing her that I knew the "correct" rules, she relented and I never had a problem with her afterwards.
So I like the message, but there is a way that 3e rules *can* be very fun (or Pathfinder, I mostly play PF): 1) Playing with people who aren't rules lawyers 2) Using the broad rules system as inspiration. Don't look things up in the moment, make a ruling but then look up the rules after and use that to expand your rules vocab. What this does is give you a (supposedly) robust way of doing something you might have to homebrew. Wanna run a rebellion? There's a system for that. Wanna do gladiatorial performance combat? There's a system for that. Wanna build a settlement? There's a system for that. It lets you take a character/campaign concept and ground it in something tangible immediately with explicit options for expressing yourself within those concepts.
"Your ruling may not be "correct," but it will be "good". Your players will think "that's fair" and you can move on." Love this quote! The key is fairness through the players eyes, that is what makes it "good". A ruling can be good enough in the DM's eyes, but to make it a true success, there needs to be a level of assent from the players. Forgive the social studies teacher rant here, but that is part of the reason why we teach about philosophers like John Locke, our modern conceptions of goodness and fairness in western society are so linked to the consent of the governed that even a benevolently divine right styled DM will potentially come across as capricious or patronizing. For example: A rule enforced consistently, but that is perceived as unfairly disadvantaging players, will create bitter and resentful players. They won't trust your game because it feels like you're trying to "win" and make them "lose", or ruin their fun in some way. Additionally, an unfair ruling in the players favor can be perceived as bad because the players feel they are getting away with something. Drama and tension dies, verisimilitude is broken, and the players check out. They have seen the little man behind the curtain and feel let down. That is why when I make a ruling at the table I admit that "this is what I think" and I allow my players to disagree. I ask "does this seem fair to everyone?" And if it doesn't, I give them space to be heard. I may still make the ruling for the time being, but I tell my players that we will revisit this next session after I've gotten to look up the rules. I invite any player who felt aggrieved by my ruling to help me remember to look up the issue so we can have a fair and consistent ruling that we all buy into. They feel a sense of ownership in the game at that point. It starts to become more of our world instead of just my world. Not all players can be satisfied by this, however. Some players desperately hold to the sense of safety they get from the "objectivity" and "rightness" found in the written word (be it game rules, constitutions, scriptures, whatever). Such player personalities, if inflexible, may never be satisfied by a homebrew ruling; even if everyone else at the table sees it as consistent, fair, and good. Such personalities may simply not mesh with the game you run. And that is okay.
I feel a need to explain that some of us pedants enjoy a good story immensely, but as we are running with a story, we trip and lose immersion when we encounter a misspelling or a grammar error. I can’t help this, this is who I am and it’s weird to me that other people don’t take psychic damage when they read a typo. I’m sure there are some joyless pedants out there, but I’m a joyful pedant. Love your stuff
I think this is probably your most important video on dungeon mastering. The various communities all sprout rule lawyers when new DMs ask for advice. Many times the advice these new DMs need is the importance of communication and getting the drama to flow at the table instead of advanced rulings. Nice one Matt!!
I have no idea where I fall in this analysis. I'm equally very invested in following the rules as written and running a good, fun game for my players. I'm the type of guy who tries his best to follow all the rules of language _because_ I'm kind of paranoid that I'm not communicating clearly otherwise.
I deeply appreciate this video because I think it makes clear that understanding the intention behind the design is far more important than understanding the rules which sprung forth from said intention.
I totally agree,just like to add one thing: if rules are language, in my humble opinion it is totally fine to change some grammar to fit your goal, but it is not really fair to switch just to made up gibberish, people can't understand any more or switch to a way of speaking, no everyone likes. I really dislike rules lawyers at my table, but just as mutch I dislike self proclaimed "artists" who just don't care about the rules ur consistency at all. (Example is not from DnD) Player 1: "Can I stab the orc in the eye to insta kill it?" "Artist DM: "Of cause you can, just make an attack roll, slightly harder, my game my rules lol." Player 2 who spent literally XP to master a special "stabbing for vulnerable places" feat: *grumble*. You can totally make your own rulings, but please check, wich kind of play your players like and in which rules they are in vested/they trust. Edidt: missed Matts comment, he says it better than me :)
The point at 10:35 about the difference in the PURPOSE OF RULES between competitive board games/sports vs. RPGs is such an important point that I've never heard more clearly articulated than right here in this video. It really sums up the whole issue.
My main issue and conflict that occurs that gets me upset with a DM is rules that involve player abilities. A player creates a character looks over the abilities and how they work ( or how they think it works) roleplays their character then in that crucial moment of time the DM doesn't follow the rules as written and makes up a rulling ( either because they don't know the rule or don't like it.) Well the player suddenly feels upset and confused because either their ability doesn't work now the way it's suppose to and now doesn't know how their ability will work. One school of thought is well the DM is right don't rules lawyer. This ignores the fact the player knew the rule. Sights what they read and understood but the DM still rules against them because we'll they don't want to be bothered with rules. So the player is now scratching their head. Well how does my ability work. This then destroys the flow of the game to the player and the enjoyment. On top of that perhaps reason why they chose that class to play. This is the problem between no real rules when they involve player ability and the economy of their action. There needs to be some sort of set rules that is agreed upon by the DM and players. I not to comfortable with a DM who just seems to be making up rulings on the fly.
I started DMing in February after never having encountered the game before, now I'm running 2 games, both of which are going swimmingly and I have to say 80% of the credit goes to Matt Colville. I didn't even need to watch this video because I think after binge watching the Running the Game playlist about 3 times, I can tap into my brain's Colville chamber and ask "what would Colville do"? (Matt if you're reading this, you may soon be partially responsible for hundreds of Namibians getting into this game... If my plan goes according to itself.) Thank you man. You are making the world a better place, 20 minutes at a time.
One thing missing from this video, that used to be a major component of DM advice in the 70s and early 80s, is that CONSISTENCY is more important than accuracy. Your players won't mind if you're making a ruling on the fly that might contradict the "real" rule, as long as your rulings today, are consistent with your rulings from last week and last month. In fact a lot of "rulings" come about because you DO know the rule...and you just don't like it! So you make up your own!
It used to be, DMs were told to make something up and move on, that was virtuous, but they were also told that their rulings need to be consistent with the rulings you made before.
Player only rebel when the DM seems *capricious*. Players need to be able to predict how something will turn out, and if you're not consistent in your rulings, they stop trusting you and you lose them.
The more you DM, the more you develop your own style and your rulings become more consistent, but it never hurts to ask your players how you ruled on an issue before. No need to be proud, it's much worse to contradict yourself than it is to just ask the players "how did we deal with this last time?"
I think the idea of needing to be consistent is why some players and DMs prefer a robust rules system. We can make a ruling on the fly and not understand the long term consequences of that ruling. And now we are faced with a choice, we could stick to it and potentially lose some aspect of our game that we held dear whether it be it the verisimilitude or the power balance, or anything else. Or we could change the ruling and though we have good reason to do so we may come across as unfair now that we are changing how things are ruled.
I agree with the idea that being capricious is what turned me off from two DM I have had in the past. I KNOW they didn't read the 5e rules and they had trouble with understanding nuance in games like Wiz War. One DM would systematically take the opposite argument I would be able to point out through thorough page attributions and examples.
Issues I have had: the DM made me hit a party member with a fireball because I was in magical darkness, and to him, it didn't make sense I would be able to have precision to hit enemies on the left and not the ally on the right. But the spell mentions nothing about needing sight (just like attack roll spells. Usually saving throw cantrips do require sight).
Another example: the DM doffed plate armor in one action when I cast heat metal. Same battle, the DM went invisible but did not take the hide action so I just happened to miss with Faerie Fire.
Another example is DMs not understanding the mechanics behind heavily obscured areas, often still allowing opportunity attacks or just calling it blanket disadvantage. While the rules seem weird here, why be inconsistent. Technically, fog cloud can extend the range of your longbow attacks as a straight roll. That's how the rules work, but this doesn't make sense to some DMs but casting magic spells does. Eventually, it is arbitrary. I agree that being consistent is most important.
Enough of these instances, you realize the DM doesn't pay much attention to detail or game mechanics and attacks you for "rules lawyering" which is basically the community-allowed cut down when things are too complex for them and they are feeling shut down.
I understand d&d is a game that brings together the imaginative but it will also bring those of us technical science and engineering/STEM field people, and I feel like by not playing by rules, you're saying D&D is just for people who have imagination but no technical aptitude. The value is placed on those with imagination and not those who can handle complex rules systems. Why not let those who understand it show you why and then recognize others have strengths you don't? I recognize my story telling and authoring isn't as good, but I don't trash authors. Don't attack technical people because you're not good at it.
You're making a whole video character attacking people who feel safe with rules. For you, rules hold you back. One is not right, but it is important to direct these people to games that place high priority on rules as written than to attack a common personality.
These said people may take comfort in counting calories and writing down their sets and reps in the gym. Other people are extremely overweight and value the social aspects of eating and trying various culinary permutations of nutrition, something the American culture prioritizes and has health problems because of.
So in the spirit of inclusivity, which I know you value having watched your other videos and being very liberal (ironically liberals are anything but inclusive these days), why is it ok for you to bash a personality style but it isn't ok to discriminate in other ways? If you don't like it, you can say what kind of table you wish to play at and save us all the frustration of playing together.
Wait a minute, this message says 1 day ago, but video was released only few minutes ago... did you time travel?
@@jrg305 Almost took you seriously until you decided to make it about politics at the end. I'm sorry you had a bad time with DMs who clearly didn't understand the rules in the first place (which is clearly not what he was talking about, btw), but it's not the same as experiencing racism or sexism or homophobia. Sit down.
@@jrg305 This may be what you took from it, because you feel somehow personally attacked, but you are off center on what he was saying. Having gamed with and under EE majors and coders I understand where you're coming from, but you've miscalculated here.
I have a rules lawyer in my group. He loves reading and memorising rules, and he's also a DM from time to time. I can tell you he's a great addition, because when I'm running, he respects my ruling, and if I think I need some clarification, I can ask him, and he'll explain it to us. He doesn't fight over "the correct way" or any of that, he's just a chill dude who loves D&D and likes to know the rules in the book!
I like calling such folks "Rules Shepherds", just to distinguish them from the bad connotations to Rules Lawyers. They know all/most of their "sheep" (rules) very well, and keep watch to make sure none of them go forgotten or stray away (aka remembering the table's rulings and helping with the rules the DM has "forgotten"). However, unlike Rules Lawyers, who just wish to debate what is "right vs wrong"/why their "client" (interpretation of the rules) is right, a Rules Shepherd doesn't mind if one of the sheep is a bit different from how they think sheep should act (aka if the DM rules differently than RAW).
Rules Shepherds care for the rules so they can protect/safeguard them, not to argue over them
I have to fight my rules lawyer tendencies, and the player/dm you described is how I strive to be as a player (it's hard, lol).
@@Patches2212 Rules Shepherd is a great term I'm totally going to use in the future.
That's not a rules lawyer. A lawyer argues.
I think that a rules Lawyer would be less of a person who knows the rules and likes for them to be followed like a "Rules Scholar", and more like somebody who will argue for specific interpretations of rules that will give them an advantage as a lawyer is often seen as not really caring about what the law is or its intent but whether or not they can keep their client from being punished.
@@Patches2212 I love this. I was going to comment and say "I'm not sure you can truly call someone a rules lawyer if they are not shouting 'OBJECTION!' to the other players, DM included, on a regular basis." To me Rules Lawyer is in behavior, not in how versed someone is with the rules. The behavior described here is clearly another thing and I like Rules Shepherd as a descriptor for that!
My first DM always made sure to remind us, in those "but the rules say" moments, that it was the Player's Handbook, not the Player's Rulebook. Dungeon Master's Guide. Not Dungeon Master's Rules.
It's funny you say that, I had a conversation with a player today who told me to "Read the Rulebook, Nat 1s aren't a thing"... I proceeded to tell him that they are in my world, and he said "I want you to read the Rulebook and make a list of every rule you are following and every rule you are making up..." I don't think my campaign is the right campaign for him, and I think I'll tell him what you are saying here. "It's the Player's Handbook, not the Player's Rulebook."
@@pensato348 Making a rough list of things you typically deviate from the rules on isn't really a bad idea. For example, if you're going to be using a crit fumble table, a player might want to know that before they choose a fighter, where you could significantly affect the function of their character. Obviously, asking for every rule you're house ruling can be excessive, but if you know some ahead of time, that should really be covered in session zero. I might rule something different than the rules on the fly, but I do crits different than RAW, so I make sure to let my players know ahead of time.
@@paximilian4037 yeah, for sure, communication is essential, and asking for home rules isn't that bad of a thing. The problem was much more complicated than I could explain easily in a comment, but the problem really came from a sense of not wanting to fail... ever... not that the rules I was playing by weren't clear. I had gone over some expectations and home-rules in our Session 0, but I didn't expect to have to explain nat 1s and nat 20s being special, because I've never seen or played in a game where they weren't automatic failures or successes. Either way, though, it was nice that the disagreement happened because it lead to me understanding that our styles of play and what we enjoyed from the game were significantly different.
I run online using discord. I have a tab for rules. General rules that apply game wide. Specific rules, like can the artificers pet give or receive flanking. And as things come up, as they always do, I add to that tally.
A man goes wine tasting. "Ah yes, a fine aroma." He takes a sip. "With distinct hints of blue, harkening back to my youth and the overconsumption of aquatic mammalian popsicles."
I read this comment before the vid and I was *so* confused.
@@ZumbaMarx same, still waiting on ads
I'm a Canadian who has never seen an Otter pop. So I don't know which one of many such artificially supplied flavors blue might taste like.
@@MorinehtarTheBlue You ever had koolaid or gatorade? pretty much follows the same flavor-colors pattern.
@@MorinehtarTheBlue the "blue raspberry" flavor in most drinks is what he's referring to.
It's incredible the amount if juice this channel gives. It took me years to learn a lot of stuff that is just simply and eloquently presented in this channel.
So many people can pick up their DM screen, binge this channel and start where I was starting years into the hobby. There's no substitute for running the game still, but man can you get a running start.
What a time to play DnD!
That’s exactly what I did! I spent a summer watching literally all of his running the game videos and then ran campaigns where I put his lessons into action. I’m a much better DM than I would have been because of it!
@@voltdragon Good on you, it's such a good launching point. I'm sure you're both starting at a better point and learning faster than I ever did. It's great!
If even the only thing people get from this channel is, "Don't wait. Just start." I think that's pretty valuable. Matt might have a different value proposition in mind, considering his effort, though.
That's what I did. 1.5 years into a campaign so far and going well. It helps that I have a great group of players of course.
i kinda miss those 3 hours fights about grapple tho. but man, todays roleplaying systems are fun and the amount of excelent GM's giving you advise is shoking.
Matt calls it a rant, but this feels more to me like an introductory lecture to The Philosophy of RPGs as taught by him. And, in fact, I can think of few people better equipped to proctor such a lesson for us all here on RUclips. I move to change Matt's title from "The King of Kickstarter" to "Preeminent Philosopher of RPGs".
it's only fitting since he is no longer the King of Kickstarter
What are lectures but rants you pay for?
It is a rant because of it's inspiration, which much be addressed in the work. Joyless pedants.
This is good philosophy, and I want more of it. Matt covers a lot of other related areas of philosophy soundly, and exploring the philosophy of storytelling is something we are sorely missing.
@@nathandorsey9145 Ha! Well, touché...
I just refer to him as "Bugbear Prophet"
*You're
(In all seriousness, this was a great video, both about people, language, and how we interact with the world, both in helpful and unhelpful ways. Beautifully done, thank you!)
Wait, which channel am I in again?
🤣
i would like but it is at such a good number. 69. Nice. wow someone ruined it
I saw that, too. I wonder if we now get tabletop reviews of tabletop games from a not-brilliant man ... Sorry Nick, nice to see you on a completely different channel! And now we need to find out whether Matt collects knives ... or watches ;+)
And yes, very good video. Thank you from me as well!
You know, I will still continue to correct that. That is the purpose of my online interaction.
I'd say the thing about language specifically is that every community will use language differently and understand 'deviations' common to their group. When communicating between communities or cultures, however, technical accuracy becomes much more important since the common understanding is not guaranteed to exist. Every game group could use entirely idiosyncratic house rules and it would work fine within that context. What a ruleset does is allow people to talk about a game as something that exists beyond a single group, as something common to a greater community.
"This is a bit of a rant."
*IT. IS. TIME*
I grew up in a family of writers. You are preaching to the choir. In our family, the phrase "The point of language is to communicate," has ALWAYS meant as long as you are expressing yourself accurately, and that expression is understood, you did it right. Of course, then I went off and became an engineer.
Man I feel called out, I definitely can say that I have had my viewpoint about rules and how important they are changed. It’s been a joke at my DnD table that I’m a textbook rules lawyer, and several times I’ve militantly followed the rules, and pointed out rules mistakes of other players and the DM. Now that I’m DMing some, I think this has been a huge lesson for me. Thanks for the awesome video!
Just as in all arts, you need to know the rules before you try to break them. That's the difference between being clever and being sloppy. You don't need to be 100% accurate in rules or language, but you at least need to care about being clear and consistent in both if you want to avoid frustrating people.
Well said, king. 👑
I think this applies to just DMing in general. If you want to be a DM you should read at least one module even if you won't run it.
Then perhaps the best way to say it is that, like with a language, the rules are most important when you’re a beginner and still learning how it works
One of the more reliable rules/ruling compromises I use with my groups is, "I'd rather not stop everything to check this. How about we do 'x' now and reference for he next session?" It often works.
And Rule of Cool is important too. I like rewarding my players for being creative, fun, and unpredictable.
I think this mentality should pretty much not exist after everyone has internet on their phones. It takes less than 5 minutes to find any rule and any explanation for these rules online.
@@chrisstoltz3648 it's your personal issue, not a universal one. Each group and each game is different.
@@helgenlane If you believe that then why did you try to correct OP? Clearly this works for them and their group, which is different from yours...
I wanted to point out that one of the most important functions of the rules is to make sure you are treating your players fairly. DM's that overtly play favorites are also playing fast and loose with the rules and many stories in /r/rpghorrorstories are only possible because a bad DM threw the rules out the window to godmode people. With that said, I agree with your statement that consistency is more important than accuracy and as long as deviations from the rules are done with good intentions, everything is cool!
The best and to my knowledge, only way to stop things like what happens in r/rpghorrorstories from happening is to talk about it ooc, or stop playing with them.
Don't be consistently bad.
"Mastery is revealed in limitation."
I think this point is undersold in this rant. Rules exist to provide structure. That structure then provides meaning to what's created. Too many rules and you become fixated on the form rather than the meaning. But too few and nothing meaningful can be properly formed. Both in language and D&D, rules provide a structure of commonality so that interactions are meaningful. Using those limitations to their fullest is what reveals a true master, who can then transcend those limitations knowing the value they bring.
I would argue that without rules or with a disproportionate amount of rulings, D&D isn't as fun because limitation breeds drama.
Exactly, and that I think gets lost in a rush to downplay the fixation of following rules perfectly
Very well said.
Knowing the rules makes knowing when to break them an art form.
Grammar and syntax comes after meaning, but they support it and change the way it is perceived. Good grammar and syntax should be invisible, we only react to it when it's bad. Some don't react at all, while others get an almost physically painful reaction.
The same should be true for story and rules in roleplaying; the story is supported by the rules (just as our world is supported by rules which physics is trying to understand), but if the rules makes the story not make sense then one should change one and/or the other.
It's the communication; as long as everyone agrees on the rules/grammar and syntax, then it is easy to communicate. If someone breakes the rules then communication becomes hard. And because so many people use a common language it's not as easy to just "change a rule" as it is in a game of role-playing with a small group. One should try to keep to the "rules" to avoid taxing others with added mental load (especially when something is one-to-many, like a blog on the internet or a book), but if everyone you communicate with knows the same but different rules then communication is not a problem.
Yeah, exactly this. There needs to be a reason for every deviation, whether it be in language or games. Otherwise you're flailing around being confusing and frustrating. And here's the thing: Sometimes frustration or confusion is the purpose as well, but it still needs to be deliberate.
Something important to note is that the slightest change, where people will understand the meaning anyway, can give something a slightly different meaning. For instance, "wherever he is" carries a slightly different meaning than "where ever he is." The first means that he is somewhere that is unknown, whereas the second implies that he is in a place (whether known or unknown) forever.
Tiny rule changes can alter things quite a bit and as a DM you have to be ready to deal with the consequences.
@@beardalaxy this is a great point - and further, you don’t even need to change a single word in a sentence to create this kind of linguistic confusion.
To give a crass example, take the sentence “I didn’t screw your mother”’. Say this sentence aloud, and stress a different single word each time. The meaning changes drastically!
I will say that I mostly agree...except for how absolutely Matt said it. "Rules pedants" aren't all waiting like vultures to take pleasure in pointing out an error in the rules, nor are they mutually exclusive with the group of people telling dramatic stories for drama's sake. I have known many people that are rules pedants, not because they enjoy pedantry, but because they honestly believe that everyone has more fun when we all follow the same set of rules. They think the dramatic stories are easier to tell or listen to if we all understand the same set of rules. And, they often take great joy in finding rule combinations that give them a cool combo effect. That isn't joyless, it is simply joy with a different source and expression.
Also, the alternative isn't necessarily "confusion". It may be hard feelings when the rules aren't consistently applied (or even just appear not to be.) Or it could be a too harsh ruling that keeps a player from doing a cool thing that should have been allowable by the rules, if only the DM had taken the time to check or ask. After all, bad rulings can ruin a game as much (or more) than strict adherence to a bad rule.
(And yes, the people I know who take joy in being 'rules ambassadors' are probably the minority of the Rules Pedants. But, they do exist and deserve to be acknowledged.)
Yeah, his general point was good, but too much "mind-reading."
"joyless pedant" 😆😆 I have been pedantic, but not necessarily joyless at it. 😉
Exactly, being a pedant is TONS of fun!
Thanks for making the joyless distinction between the two ;)
Matt is giving real comforting dad vibes. 🖤
*80s sitcom theme plays*
Matt: "What's wrong Tony? Have a bad game?"
"Gee Dad, Darren is really hard on me, he's a real rules lawyer. I wish I knew all the rules, I shouldn't even BE a Dungeon Master."
Matt: this video
In my experience, rules lawyers are usually* a product adversarial/authoritarian DMs. If you think the DM is out to get you then mastery of the rules is a survival tactic. It shows you how to accomplish what you want without the DM just saying "no" and allows you to rein in some of the DM's malevolent impulses.
Sometimes collaborative DMs have to learn how to play with players who learned how to play under adversarial DMs and laying down "we don't play that way" doesn't work because it reinforces the perception of the DM as authoritarian and the player thinks you're just trying to take away their tools. First, offer a rule on how to deal with rules disputes: If it's a matter of immediate life or death for your character we'll stop and figure it out, otherwise we just roll with the ruling and hash it out after the game.
On a longer timeline though, you have to build trust so that they can accept that the rulings you make are intended to promote fun, not squash it. Start with something minor that clearly benefits them - a cool home-brewed class, spell, or ability modification. "Your fiend warlock can choose to do fire damage instead of force with their eldritch blast." Build from there.
*Some forms of neurodivergence can also make people prone to this, but show them where rule 0 is in the book and then the rest of the remedy is still the same.
I think rules in D&D lend themselves to a sense of verisimilitude and consistency in the game. They mark the difference between a game and collaborative storytelling. That being said, rules can and sometimes should be broken, just consistently and in a way that doesn’t ruin the experience.
I think there is some real flaws in this thinking. It seems to imply that anyone who sees a rule being gotten wrong and says something about it as playing the game wrong and acting maliciously. And tries to do so by painting one broad picture of anyone you might see post a single comment about it. This is ridiculous, and just because you don't see them talking about enjoying the game there and then, doesn't mean they don't. That is bad faith conjecture and sophistry.
More importantly, it implies a bad homerule can never make a game bad or unfun. It definitely can. I have sat through games where very confident but very wrong GMs declared that we'd be sticking with their rules and undermine the various systems that relied on the rules the GM had overwritten. This is not to say you shouldn't break a game's rules, but you, ideally, should understand why those rules are there before you break them. James Joyce and Shakespeare broke the rules of grammar because they knew they would be understood without the excluded grammar rules.
In a situation where you don't know a rule and don't have time to look it up, making something up is the right answer, I agree with Colville there. But an important point I feel was excluded is to make it clear to the player that this is an in-the-moment, once-off rule. "We'll do it like this for now, I'll look it up later". And tell the players the correct rule next session. Otherwise, the players will often avoid doing the action ever again and never even mention it because, in Matt's example, it involves risks the players don't like when it needen't. Consistency isn't worth it if it's consistently bad.
Also you can totally blame the game system for a bad game sometimes. Some systems can turn out to be miserably bad, and misery is best shared. Don't put all that blame and pressure on a GM, that's awful.
I am constantly seeking a nice middle-ground between robust/complex rules and flexible/simple rules. I like deeper game mechanics where you take disparate things and find something really cool by combining them in novel ways. What I don't want is for that depth/complexity to come at the cost of being able to roleplay cool stuff that isn't explicitly on the character sheet. Setting expectations for how to use the rules and how to make good rulings is definitely going in the front of my Game Master's book.
You make a good point. My thinking following the video (regarding good game design) was "as few rules as possible, but with as much provision as possible." Sort of a libertarian mindset. Give the GM the building blocks, and let them run wild. There's no need to dictate every interaction in a system if the rules are well-written. Sure, there are scenarios where specific rulings are required - grappling comes to mind as one such case in D&D - but if your rules are simple, logical, and intuitive, the GM will be able to intuit a valid ruling after growing comfortable with the provided rules.
Have you checked out 13th age? It was made by former designers of 3rd and 4th edition but they wanted to make a more narrative rules light system.
@@vehmic6278 Took a look and yeah, very 4th edition at its core but with more narrative abstraction and emphasis on character than class. A good read for sure.
In skyrim theirs a mod called frostfall, which adds survival elements. you need food, sleep and to keep warm. its fairly robust and well made. most players find it spices up the game significantly. however it can quickly turn into a chore as your character gets more powerful and you master the mechanics.
i think the same happens with alot of tabletops. like the rules for travel, or keeping track of players eating daily.
Having a lot of rules doesn't inherently mean those rules are hard to remember or complicated.
Compare Pathfinder 2e which has a lot of rules, but a very very tight framework for those rules. Even if you do need to look something up, the system for something is always concise and simple, and the meanings of everything is codified into Traits, Feats, Actions, and Activities, so there's rarely any confusion.
5E on the other hand, is full of incongruently defined means of conducting various aspects of the game, and no unifying structure for how anything in that game works.
Sure, you might need to look things up more with Pathfinder, but you're going to have a much easier time looking them up, and have to do a lot less reading when you do find them than you would with 5e.
I agree with all of this except for you comment on the oxford comma. Anyone who leaves it out deserves prison.
The most important thing in language is the same as the most important thing in the rules: a common understanding of usage. When you are having a discussion, you must agree on the meaning of words, especially important ones, otherwise you can talk for hours and never actually communicate. When you are playing 5E D&D, you must agree on the implementation of rules, both official and house, and on the style and flavor of a game, otherwise you can play for hours and never actually have fun.
Cannot like this comment enough. Langue is a tool for expression. And like many thing ps in life, just because you can, doesn’t always mean you should. And this actually cuts both ways for rules as well. Sometimes the rules are just bad, poorly thought out and implemented, or impede play in a way that is distracting and of superficial importance.
At other times, your understanding of the rules is likely to be very incomplete and can have far reaching implications that create a myriad of issues that yank you and your players out of the fiction and enjoyment. We are human after all and not perfect beings. The key is to play and understand the rules to the best of your ability that best facilitates the kind of outcomes you are looking for.
Rules do matter, language does matter, meaning does matter. But these things change over time, we are adaptable creatures, not mindless automatons. The rules and mechanics exist to facilitate the kinds of experiences that are deemed fun-nothing more and nothing less.
Thanks, that's exactly right. Colville picks some easy examples like "Let's eat Grandma" but not all examples are that easy-- we can look at DnD for the doubly ambiguous "Holy water or powdered silver and iron, which the spell consumes" components, for example; there's no single, obviously correct interpretation of that clause. And when some player casts fog cloud in the middle of a wolf pack, and the DM decides that there is such a thing as double-advantage, the player can easily be, "But negating pack tactics was the whole reason I did that in the first place-- it was a major part of my reasons for learning the spell in the first place." There is a clear analogy between language and rules here. There's no Great Dictionary in the Sky for any of us to consult, and DnD rules are no different. But there is such as thing as shared understandings, even if imperfectly shared, and those are important.
Thank you Colville, for standing up for logic and reason. As you mentioned, the mentality of championing a static universe goes beyond D&D, and sadly the U.S. is in a state of crisis because of it. I can't think of anyone who would not benefit from this video. Thank you.
Thank you for all of your wonderful videos Matt - I was feeling very demotivated during my first campaign that I stopped running consistently in June, and all your videos have me getting the itch once more!
I was one of those people who constantly corrected others in spelling and grammar, even in casual environments like Instant Messages and chat rooms (remember those?).
It's almost no coincidence that when I started getting burned out with 3rd Edition's complex network of rules sometime in the mid 2000s and realized how much people have come to over-rely on rules over the DM's judgements (as I am a perpetual DM of 25 years myself), I subconsciously stopped being such a language elitist and just allowed people make all the mistakes they want.
I'll still occasionally point out spelling and grammar mistakes when I spot them (usually the more egregious ones), but most of the time, I just keep it to myself. Unless, of course, I'm specifically asked to proof-read something, in which case the red pen comes out of retirement. ;)
@@bitghost4700 Oh? I did have to go in and add -ed after a particular word, but please prove to the world how skilled you are and point out mistakes in a RUclips comment.
EDIT: I don't care if I make mistakes in a RUclips comment as much, especially since I tend to change thoughts or sometimes lose attention since I'm listening to the video.
Also, I may have come off as exceedingly snarky as I'm working at the moment, so I'll just apologize now for the unnecessary tone, but I still stand by the intent of my words, not the severity. :)
Whom'st'd've'nt kept you from your expression?
Just want to chime in that a) I've had a similar growth pattern and share a similar stance, and b) I really dig your profile picture
Agree mostly but an exception to this that I've found is for groups with multiple DMs. Our Westmarches-ish campaign has 4 people DMing, and we agreed early on that we would be playing strictly RAW so we could avoid instances of a character being allowed to do something in one DM's campaign and not in another's because of different rulings. But even then the main goal wasn't because the rules are sacred or always perfect, and there have been some times when we didn't like RAW and made notes to change them in the next campaign, but to avoid frustration from both DMs and players so everyone knew how the game worked no matter who was at the table.
I think this goes to Matt’s comment on consistency. By all adhering to the rules more strictly, you can stay consistent across gm’s and maintain the local realism of the world you’re playing in. Thinking of the rules as language still makes sense. If multiple writers worked on the same book, you would want them to speak the same dialect and use words in the same ways in order to maintain the consistency of the main characters’ personalities and speech patterns, and in order to make the transitions between chapters as seamless as possible. Maybe a better way to describe this would be multiple actors playing the same character. If two separate film adaptations of Batman were being produced with two different casts, the best way to make them feel like they take place in the same universe would be to adhere as strictly as possible to the comics. It’s not because the comics are particularly virtuous, it’s simply because they’re the most complete style guide for how batman should be.
That's a good idea. You don't want the players to not know what they can and can't do across the same campaign.
I too have a West Marches-ish campaign! Ours is on Discord. We've done much the same, sticking to RAW as much as we are capable. Like you said, this is rather important with multiple DMs. That's why I enjoy having a plain and straightforward RAW game, as well as a home game where I'm able to express a story in a fun and satisfying way without having to overly worry about the rules.
This is a good thing to point out. I bailed on a westmarch style campaign because there was one GM in particular who ran combat differently than just about everybody else and severely punished martials/short rest characters with his style. Would have been nice if he could have gotten reigned in by the other GMs to be consistent with how others did things.
I am in Westmarch campaign and we don't stick to RAW very often at all, but I think there is a lot of discussion with DM's concerning rules. Each DM does have their own style so there is certainly some inconsistency over how they apply the rules (which is inevitable unless you go RAW) , but it was never different enough to effect how the game was played. I think not doing RAW can work in a westmarch so long as there is a good communication between DM's and players and a general. I think you can do either butnot going RAW and making it work is likely a fair bit more effort but I think personally it is worth it. In conclusion, Westmarches are great. Would recommend to anyone who has yet to play in one.
As someone who speaks multiple languages at differing levels of fluency, I can truly say it boils down to whether or not you can communicate clearly. I've mixed languages and used hand gestures to help get a point across, akin in many ways to splicing pieces of several TTRPGs to make a rule on the fly. I then go home and look up the words I didnt know so I can better create sentences in the future. If I had let my lack of knowledge of a word or phrase stop me from communicating, I wouldnt have gotten very far in language. If you let a lack of knowing a rule prevent you from creating something that works temporarily... youll have a hard time DMing
As a DM who has moved from 5e to pathfinder/3.5, I do miss having the fluidity the system invites to the game, less conflict between DM and player on how things work and what rules are what back win 5e.
But I wish to point out one thing that has been different sense the shift. My players seem more interested in trying to do more kinds of things. Perhaps it's just the players, but I've seen more cases of a player wanting to do something, often after finding out there were rules for it. A player wanting to make a captain America style shield throwing, Gun Buckler welding fighter character, or a player wanting to be a Magic Item crafting Magus (which might just be so he can make sure he gets the magic items he wants), or most of all 2 of my players wanting to found a kingdom because they found out there were rules for it, and feel that the campaign they are playing in has a good opportunity to use those rules. Non of these kinds of player characters and actions appeared in my games in the past, until I started using a rules system that openly told players "you can do this, and here is how it works".
My point being there is some point to having rules as a means to promote players doing things, I've had players play 5e who got there characters killed doing nothing because I quote "the rules don't say I can do that." and even after trying to be clear that you can attempt anything you think you could do, it doesn't click for all people.
I wish playing a system that had the rules to promote more player ideas and concepts didn't have to come at the cost of a DM's sanity being constantly called out and hounded about the rules.
I feel once I finish these Pathfinder campaigns (running two at once) I will probably ether take what I learned from Pathfinder and return to 5e, expanded and learned, or I'll have learned how to handle the system in a fashion that doesn't make me go mad....
I felt like I had a point making this but now I feel like I'm just ranting, anyway, I guess at the least I'll share this text for the algorithm or what ever excuse people make.
I would strongly recommend Pathfinder 2e, it keeps the larger amount of content and more in depth rules, but also takes notes from 5e on simplicity and intuitiveness.
You can make genuinely interesting builds, and the versatility of the feat and 3 action systems really creates an engaging and fluid experience.
I built a Champion (paladin, but more versatile) which I designed to be an AC machine. In any other system, it would have been boring to play, but the 3 action system allowed me to break my “Move, Raise Shield, Take Cover, (Wait for enemy attacks to spend my reaction)” in favor of more interesting activities. Despite building such a formulaic and repetitive character, I had more fun playing that character than any other I’ve played before.
I'm torn on 5e. As a DM I like the simplicity, as a player I don't feel like any character I make feels unique and worse I don't feel like my choices are really significant like they were in previous editions. If I can (try to) do anything not covered by the rules it either isn't something unique to my character choices or my DM had to come up (and maybe playtest) the rule on their own which isn't easier.
as an old forever pathfinder DM I getcha completely. I ended up just trying to keep the world rules consistent and if a player wanted to do something whack they were responsible for maintaining those rule systems themselves (which they did happily funny enough). Playing physically helps this though, idk how online dms cope.
I think your experience only strengthens his point! A more robust set of rules gives all players a more firm grasp of the language they need to use to attempt things. To know that there is already a rule puts more confidence in a players decisions
If you haven't heard of it, I'd recommend having a look at Open Legend. It's designed so every action is vaguely defined, encouraging players to explore ways they can flavor their characters' abilities. Invoking "slowed" on an enemy halves their movement speed, but that can be done by casting a time spell or by throwing caltrops. It excites the imagination while staying open-ended enough to be bent to the table's needs.
I totally agree, yet interestingly enough I’m also someone who thinks the system we use is important. Some RPGs give rules for overcoming challenges, some for setting up scenes, some attempt to create drama, others comedy. I’ve trying to reconcile my belief that “it’s not always important to follow the rules” and “rules are important because (depending on the system) they can create interesting, specific experiences.” And I think what I was missing was thinking of the system as a language. I’ve often thought of the rules as “tools” but I think thinking of them as “a language” is much more useful.
The phrase "Rulings, Not Rules" comes from the OSR (Old School Renaissance), a subculture within D&D that had a lot of influence on the development of 5e. More specifically, it comes from Matt Finch's free Quick Primer for Old School Gaming.
Hello, Didn't knew you watched this channel.
Which is copyright 2008. So as old as 4E - so probably could not have influenced (early) 4e releases.
Hi. As a Pathfinder-playing rules-focuser, I think a major reason why I and my friends like the rules-heavy approach is that it gives the world a sense of consistency that we can plan for. By understanding how the world works, we can adapt and make smart decisions to overcome our foes. In a sense, it makes the whole game a giant puzzle to crack. That doesn't mean the GM has to 100% abide by everything (especially if they need to rule something on the fly like "make a Reflex save"), but the rules act as an essentially neutral arbiter to make things feel fair - success or failure wasn't dependent on whether the GM decided to let the players win or not.
I think that the negative view of this is that you are saying that PF becomes a puzzle game for the players. This is analogous to playing a board game. Are you actually roleplaying with the view of your characters of the world? Can they know those rules?
@@paulsnowuk We roleplay plenty outside of combat. In combat, the stakes get a lot higher and there is already a big element of randomness from the dice. The character may not in-universe understand the full intricacies of the five-foot-step, but they DO understand how fighting works and how to do it effectively, and they want to win.
@@michaelramon2411 So in-universe, they live in a world where movment is quantised into 5-foot segments? They manipulate a world with that nature to it? Doesn't this show the rules are only a tools to help model what's going on. You can't take them seriously as a 100% true representation of the nature of the world.
Thank you. You're the reason I'm not a bad gm (I hope) love you Matt. The good times you've inspired me to have have been great. I really appreciate it. Now I'm in my freshman year of college and trying to start a game over at college. Thank you for helping me have hours of fun for me and according to them my players.💙💙💙
You open this video saying this isn't a running the game video yet you still show up with some amazing advice. Always a treat to watch this channel!
One thing I want to point out is that in discussions of rules, at least as I see them, are usually like linguists, not like grammar pedant. Sure, one comment will be just blatant "do that cuz that how it supposed to be", but most of the time, people offer interpretations and why they make them. I really like the kind of rules advice that is "here is how this looks rules-as-written to me, however I would rule X because at my table we go for tone Y". You learn a lot this way.
I like this perspective on the matter, and actually, as a DM, I profondly when I say to my players "Well, here is the rule as written, here is how I understand it. If you can convince me that I can interpret the rule in a way that lets you do what you intend the way you intend to do it, then you can try it your way". I enjoy debate about rules, as long as they are not one hour long.
Lotta good points made here and I agree with the overall idea! I do wish you had made an analogy to language that better represents the way grammar actually works. The most common reason that the pedants and prescriptivists are wrong isn't because rules can be broken; it's because prescriptivists are using the **wrong** rules.
To use your example, the prescriptivist thinks that "to boldly go where no man has gone before" is grammatically incorrect. It isn't. This is verifiable if you look at the evidence, and looking at the evidence is what scientists (in this case, linguists) do. The lesson here isn't that splitting an infinitive is incorrect-but-effective-for-communicating. The lesson here is that split infinitives are, and always have been, grammatical in English.
Meanwhile, very few people indeed are going around breaking **actual** grammar rules of English. To steal a few examples from Steven Pinker... When was the last time you heard someone say "Apple the eats boy," or "The child seems sleeping," or "Who did you go to see John and?" It almost never happens, and it when it does we all immediately laugh at ourselves and realize that's not quite what we meant to say. The true grammar of our native language is something we *do* follow, because... that's what it means to be the true grammar.
All this might make for less of a convenient analogy to D&D... but I care about it. I care about it because I used to be a prescriptivist (blame my teachers), and because linguistics is fascinating and touches so much of our lives and understanding how language *actually* works is well worth it.
I think there's two big factors that play into people's temperament on rules & language.
As players, the "optimizer" tends to hang on to every word and turn of phrase, because they are trying to exploit every last number of advantage from it.
As DMs, particularly with lower levels of experience, it's easy to lean on the minutae of the rules because learning how to make quick rulings that reflect the spirit of the rules and maintain balance is just something that takes practice.
Yo let's appreciate this comment real quick
I think this video is basically the reason I prefer DMing for new players.
If they don't know the rules, they aren't constrained by them.
This leads to fewer objections and more creativity.
In response to "There is no reward for running the game 100% by the rules..."
That isn't the point, at least for me. And in no way do I run the game 100% by the rules. But, some of us just enjoy knowing there is a rule. Matt has said it before. He will print off an edited map of broken spire keep so when his players say "well isn't that convenient" he can say "it's all right here" and show that is what would happen.
The language might be about communicating, but the rules are about determining WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. That's why we have them.
Brilliant video Matt!!!
I DM'ed my first game 33 years ago. The years of thinking about and playing have taught me: Roleplaying is communication. All the way. All the time.
You are 100% right.
Matt! I employed Orcs Attack yesterday! A party of gnolls started slowly hunting the party as they traversed the mountains. It was tense and dramatic and it made the session awesome! Love the videos!
Love how polite this rant is.
Love to here your point of view about games and storytelling.
I've seen rule zero used to railroad and just in general beat the PCs into submission by many different GMs. So rules in my opinion give the PCs a leg to stand on versus that abuse.
@@Vedexent_ this wasn't one GM and from my experience it's super common.
It can be difficult to recognize an unhealthy playing environment when you're in the middle of it. Many players will persevere because bad D&D is often preferable to no D&D. But in cases like this, no amount of rules will salvage a game being run by a jerk.
Listening to Matt talk about D&D is a lot like watcging Bob Ross paint. It starts out making perfect sense, but then he says something that doesn't seem right. But sure enough, if you watch until the end, the stroke that seemed out of place makes perfect sense, and actually adds way more than you could've ever expected.
I'd call myself a joyful pedant, personally. I still consider 3.5 to be my favorite edition because of the rules. My favorite thing to do as the DM is go through all the available class, feat, and template options so that I can make fun custom monsters for my players to fight. Spending 6 hours on a Sunday afternoon to build a 30 second fight was my hobby and I enjoyed it.
Absolutely no offense meant by this. But to me that sounds absolutely miserable. I barely have 3 hours in a week to plan the entire game. Wasting 6 on 1 encounter? I would probably kill myself. Again, thats just my perception
@@Braincain007 Barely 3 hours out of 168 hours available in week? The hell you doing with your life?
@@flowonthego oh yeah because I don't sleep, work, go to classes, eat, use the bathroom, exercise, talk with friends or family, drive anywhere, or consume any other forms of entertainment during the week. Some of us have lives dude.
Edit: I also forgot to mention, you know, running the actual game. Which in itself takes 5 hours a week. And I run 2 games, so that's actually 10 hours. Then if I prep for 3 hrs each that's another 6 hours.
I don’t usually comment on videos, but I am compelled by this video to do so. Bravo on this video. I am impressed to find this on Matt’s channel. If my local D&D groups adopted this philosophy, I would be playing more 5e. Thanks for doing this video.
Couldn't agree more. Was literally just discussing this on the insanity that is twitter.
It's a shared experience, not a sausage making machine. I can run an entire campaign with a six-sided die or coin to flip, imagination, and common sense.
A nice follow-up/continuation of one of my favorite early-ish Running the Game videos, "The Map Is Not the Territory." Good vid, Matt.
Very much this.
That video still resonates with my GMing style and general approach to this hobby - ruclips.net/video/3v2_JDz2Di0/видео.html
When it comes to language, I think it's also important to think about what's being communicated by grammar and spelling outside of the actual content. When I read a paper in which the writer consistently misspells the name of a key figure in the field, or of an important concept, I'm not concerned because I don't know what they mean; rather, I'm concerned because, if the writer had spent enough time with the material to have something meaningful to say about it, they probably would have learned how to spell it.
“Whilst not directly correlated, sloppy writing strongly implies sloppy thinking - and we already have enough sloppy thinkers”
There is a big difference between never spelling a word the same way twice and consistently spelling it the same--albeit wrong--way.
I've found that Pathfinder is a breeze to play with a good autosheet. It lists all the relevent numbers and dynamically updates everything when i make a tweak to it. I can pick up a random weapon in a fight, look up its damage dice, input that and the weapon type and all the relevent info is calculated and ready to use. There's still looking up specific rules, but those become isolated incidents within otherwise pretty smooth play. And, with pathfinder, its incredibly easy to look up a specific rule online and find it within 20 seconds instead of scouring a book for it. That being said, I'm also playing in a game that tends to avoid some of the really complicated stuff like grappling. Its just not something my character or the enemies do. The most common thing slowing down fights is indecision because of the complex encounter, which I think of as just playing the game (until we start running in circles).
I’m a player and DM that loves rules and and definitely still loves storytelling. A DM with a strong grasp of the rules means that when I play and do something special within the games reality (created and governed by the rules) I feel like I really earned it, because I played my character well within the bounds of that reality, not just because my DM thought it was cool. To me it makes the world feel real.
I love this post. Rules as semiotics, especially in the RPG context. Made me think of the grammar of a given table/group, and how new players to those environments have to navigate this unique grammar. Eventually they even shape that grammar, and the group now has a new language. Thanks for such a powerful lens to improve my DM toolkit!
I did the ruling vs rules thing in 3E a lot. When it would speed up the play, I would just say, sure you can do that, it will give you +2 on your to hit. And we moved on without looking up the exact rule.
but that is the rule for 3e, circumstance bonus = anything the DM thinks is cool.
While the spirit of the suggestion is great, having a good grasp of the rules is a great tool for any DM. From understanding what is possible for your characters rules-wise, to check possible problems before they ruin your session. I had a DM that didn't allow the rogue to sneak attack most of the times because he didn't understand the Sneak Attack rules or other not allowing a spell a player was enthusiastic about because he didn't understand it. DMs should have a good grasp of the rules, at least to the extent of understanding their intentions and the possibilities open for the players.
I mean, if that was happening consistently over the course of a few sessions, that DM should have sat down and figured out what was going on with their player's abilities rather than saying "no you can't use it." If not, those players should sit their DM down and say "this is ridiculous, this is how it works, learn it so I can use it." If this was just one session, then the player who knew what was going on should have given a quick summary of what their ability was. Especially Sneak Attack. That is both simple to learn and simple to teach. This situation seems to fully come down to a lack of communication between DM and player, which is a much deeper issue than the type of language being used to communicate.
I think Matt has mentioned in a video (I could be wrong - not trying to put words in his mouth) it should be the player explaining how player abilities work if the DM doesnt remember; the DM has enough to worry about with all the rest of the game. If the DM is ignoring the player attempting to explain (and I would assume both your example players did try) then that isn't just ignoring the rules, its ignoring the players.
TLDR: the DM should understand the main rules and should be able to rely on players to know their class.
The players should have a good grasp of rules around their own characters. It shouldn't be the DMs job tho the DM should try and understand.
@@Eric_The_Cleric in the sneak attack case, we had to stand our ground. I served as rules lawyer for the rogue player and it heated up before getting some consent.
@@stealthington True, but the DM should understand enough of the rules to correctly award the players for using their options rules-wise. There is a level of player's agency based on the understanding the players have of the rules of their characters, a DM should account this.
When you know the rules of a language well enough to break them and still get your message across then you have mastered that language
When you know the rules of D&D (or any other RPG) well enough to break them and you and your players still have fun you have mastered that system
...perfect or complete knowledge is impossible, but a robust and well designed system, or language will allow you to leverage your incomplete knowledge
At 6:39 and when Matthew said “this is you” give me shivers down my spine and hyped me up super hard, you are a legend.
as a writer, this is absolutely amazing and encouraging.
This is one of the most important things to understand in most creative endeavours imo. Helped me a lot professionally.
I don't approach my GMing as a big W Writer, I approach it as a game designer, but as a game designer I know the rules are there for structuring the creation of entertainment, not for the omnicient observer that knows what rules I broke when I entertained my players
I think why people freak out when you do not exactly follow the rules is because they view it as a social contract under which you have all agreed to work under.
If you are willing to break the social contract of the rules what part of the social contract might you break next?
The solution is of course to communicate with your players to make sure you all agree on how you are gonna play this game.
Exactly
That's an interesting point but I can see holes in it. (Note: I'm not trying to use your language in a mocking way, just trying to refer to the point you've made!)
In game, if a DM makes a ruling that favours the party the players are much less likely to "freak out", even if that's breaking the rules (social contract) just as much. Not saying it doesn't happen, but definitely less.
And in the context of an audience viewing the game (who often you will see freak out about rulings that favour the party), what concern do they have? That the DM is going to break the social contract outside the context of D&D? That seems far fetched. "Oh he gave disadvantage despite flanking, so I'm worried he's going to run a phone scam?"
Maybe that's not a great example of breaking the social contract. Licking a spoon and putting it back in the drawer?
@@ianp7054 I dunno...most "rules pedants" I know are as happy to point out rules that hurt their own situation as much as those that help them.
The first and foremost social contract is that it is the DMs domain, who then serves the players needs.
The DM can't break nothing because the DM sets everything lol.
@@ianp7054 I HATE it when the DM ignores rules in a way that favors the party. I hate it so much. It makes me feel like the entire reason for the parties success in that situation came down to DM fiat. Why did we even bother rolling dice or trying in good faith to overcome the problem if the DM is just going to hand wave and make sure we succeed no matter what. I want successes and failures to both feel earned in the same way. Follow the rules, please.
I bought the Strongholds and Followers PDF and I am really enjoying it so far. Your insights have been very helpful for me in running, and designing, games with my brother. I hope you are all doing well and I look forward to watching more of y'alls videos.
I'd say that great writers have a tremendous knowledge of grammar, spelling, syntax. They sometimes choose to break those rules, but they know them backward and forward
I feel a lot of this comes down to the old problem: player trust and dm power.
Because the DM will always, always have the power in any in-game situation. There is no way around that. It's part of the system, and it needs to be considered when it comes to things like this. The rules are one of the few things that give the players power, usually against the challenges and enemies the DM sets. So it can be very easy for the player to feel like the DM is ruling against them in their own favor and doing so by taking away a right they feel the rules give them.
That's why it is so important that rulings are fair and consistent, that players trust their DM isn't trying to win against them and that the DM is not favoring their own monsters in rulings. Because once players feel like they have to win in a fight? Good luck getting anyone to stop arguing the rules.
That's exactly what my dad always said "The purpose of language is to communicate." For this reason he was happy with people using the grammatically incorrect term "Yous" when referring to multiple people, as historically the plural was "you" and the singular was "thou". With "Thou" falling out of favour, in favour of "you" as the singular, there was a communication opening for a new word referring to multiple people... "guys" is fine too.
I tend to go with folks, but I think it communicates my intent :)
@@stealthington Absolutely... and if you're Australian/British it's also perfectly acceptable and friendly in adult company to just say "how ya doin, C***s". As long as the intention is clear to everyone it's a win.
@@grahamstewart2968 I fucking love Australians hahaha
@@stealthington I have adopted folks as well. I'm a Malaysian that sounds like an American Southerner from time to time lol.
@@grahamstewart2968 Depends if you know the guy, and you may seem like a bogan if you just start saying it.
This really fits in with a book I’ve been working through called Finite and Infinite Games by James Carse which has provided a whole new way to look at both games as well as life as something that is played and how we interact with the “rules”. The language analogy fits with it a lot, really cool.
This seems quite possibly inspired by a bit by Stephen Fry called "Language", which you can find on RUclips as well - he makes a lot of similar points there and it's also a great little rant. Check it out if you want to hear more examples of language rules.
ruclips.net/video/wBOCHPCYnDw/видео.html
Stephen Fry is amazing to listen to in his discussions about ... well, just about everything he chooses to talk about.
"They whip out their Sharpies and take away and add apostrophes from public signs, shake their heads at prepositions which end sentences and mutter at split infinitives and misspellings, but do they bubble and froth and slobber and cream with joy at language? Do they ever let the tripping of the tips of their tongues against the tops of their teeth transport them to giddy euphoric bliss? Do they ever yoke impossible words together for the sound-sex of it? Do they use language to seduce, charm, excite, please, affirm and tickle those they talk to? Do they? I doubt it. They’re too farting busy sneering at a greengrocer’s less than perfect use of the apostrophe. Well sod them to Hades. They think they’re guardians of language. They’re no more guardians of language than the Kennel Club is the guardian of dogkind." - Stephen Fry
If I recall, Matt has mentioned this video a few times, he was likely inspired.
This essay introduced me to the idea of "sound-sex" and for that I'm grateful to Mr. Fry.
Excellent video. I read this quote in a book a while ago (not related to games) and went something like "grammar and syntax are like a pair of crutches. Once you are fully fit, you throw them away."
Please God (&, more importantly, Matt) let the 4th edition history of dnd one fighter at a time video be on the way.
Remember to also plead with Justin Timberlake.
You are probably aware, but Matt is about to release his recorded 4e games to RUclips.
Well done my friend, I am a 7th grade LA teacher and I express this to my students all the time. I am not worried about the grammar or spelling when they are trying to write, but the way they are trying to convey the meaning of their story. You are an amazing human Mr. Colville, and you wealth of knowledge and understanding of human nature is a breath of fresh air.
Some of the best moments from games that I have run came from me making rulings on the fly. But I disagree that wanting to hew closely to the rules makes someone a joyless pedant. The rules don't just represent language, but the limitations of a universe. D&D is a shared story, so mutual understanding of the universe is vital to that enterprise. Someone arguing for the rules is defending their understanding of the universe, and therefore defending their enjoyment of the game. If everyone can agree that a ruling seems fair, great. But if not, DM fiat over rules as written can lead to confusion and frustration, especially if it happens a lot.
One of my players is neuro-divergent. I am a different kind of neuro-divergent. We see and experience the world differently than each other, and from neuro-typical people. Sticking to the rules as closely as we can ensures that we can play together and with other people with as little friction as possible. Calling us joyless pedants is unkind.
If a DM consistently overrides RAW, especially to the detriment of the players, and without discussing these changes in advance, then that is a problem. That problem usually occurs because the DM has adopted a competitive mentality. Unless such a mentality is agreed upon by everyone, it's very unhealthy for a game of D&D, and it is a violation of the social contract.
Likewise, players who adopt a competitive mentality, calling out their DM or arguing over the rules, are also violating the social contract. It isn't the act of sticking to the rules that makes you a joyless pedant. It is the underlying need to confront others about the rules. Calling out and actively discussing problematic behaviors is not unkind. It is the responsibility of the DM, and it is how adults handle conflicts.
As for neurodiversity, I greatly appreciate the intent behind the term. I am considered neuro-divergent. Normalizing differences is very important, and it should be encouraged. No one should feel abnormal or be labeled as such. But let's be realistic here: from a practical standpoint, the term is mostly meaningless because we all see and experience the world differently. It isn't as if all neurotypical people are a monolithic hive mind who all experience the world the same way. Viewing the world differently isn't an acceptable excuse for game ruining behaviors, and acting as if calling out those behaviors is discriminatory is a cop out.
@@proteuswest1084 I appreciate the time you took to respond. I disagree with pretty much everything you said. But I don't have the energy to argue, so I'm gonna walk away.
I don’t think Matt is necessarily calling you a joyless pedant. You’ve expressed a reason for sticking closely to the rules that helps you and your table enjoy the game. As far as I’ve interpreted, the people who are joyless pedants are those who stick to the rules for no other reason than that they are the *rules* and thus must be followed. That certainly wouldn’t include you and your friends based on what you’ve said.
“Sticking to the rules as closely as we can ensures that we can play together and with other people with as little friction as possible. Calling us joyless pedants is unkind.”
I would suggest you go back and give the video a rewatch without this thought in your mind, and you might realize that nowhere did he call what you described as joyless pedant and in fact he’s advocating for the common language you’ve developed.
@dwil0311 Edited to remove comment, I super didn't realize I wasn't the one being addressed. My bad.
I think there is a genuine and equivalent amount of fun found in navigating the puzzle of DnD rules as there is in telling any story I've had the pleasure in writing. Part of the responsibility of a DM is to provide the most fun to both types of players, tactical players and narrative players. Disregarding rules of DnD remove any distinction between any other RPG system. Additionally, I believe limitations breed creativity, so being limited by rules can lead to equally rewarding epic moments for the players to experience. In short, yes, adapt to unique circumstances to continue the flow of the game, no, following rules as written is not immediately unfun.
While I largely agree with everything said, I think this fails to consider that some people design entire characters within the well-understood and documented rules of the game, that building a good result within understood and defined constraints can feel rewarding. And seeing someone ignore the rules and the dm go along with it to do things your own character wasn't capable of doing sucks. (or more specifically, you thought about doing *that very thing* but the rules didn't support it so you built your character in a different way weeks ago). For example, the current rules on dual wielding sucks in 5e. Its not a good option when all things are considered. So I decide I'm not going to make a dual wielder. Now my permissive DM is letting the other guy do things that normally wouldn't be allowed, that guy gets to play the dual wielder that I originally wanted to because they're both ignoring specific rules that makes dual wielding suck.
The solution is to ask the DM to bend the dual wielding rules during or roughly around the time of session 0, but sometimes DMs themselves don't know the rules, don't know that the rules around dual wielding suck, etc. I've had DMs tell me they go by the rules, but they themselves don't understand the rules particularly well and then have to make 'rulings' at session 5 because they never understood the base rules. So the proposed solution would have failed there.
Another example would be mounted combat, more or less the same base problem as dual wielding in that the rules around it make it suck. So I decide I'm not going to build a lance-wielding paladin. I decide to make another different character. But then at session 8 I suddenly find the paladin has decided he's going to be a jouster and he's having a ton of fun I missed out on potentially having. I can't make a jouster too, that's just a "me too" action and going "me too" is pretty lame in general.
All that being said, saying "you shouldn't be able to do that" when someone is potentially having fun is probably the 100% incorrect response. But some rules do have good reason to exist. (just not the ones I called out here)
Matt, I agree with most of what you said. I draw the line at commas though. We need them to communicate clearly. Plus, pauses in sentences can create drama! Please don't discourage the use of the humble comma.
I like having a book full of rules to cover every possible situation. There's nothing in the world I like more, except perhaps ignoring 90% of them. Those would seem contradictory, but it's a game that appeals to both the rules lawyer and the winging-it DM alike.
I hate having a rules lawyer at the table, but I absolutely love that they can play the same game in their own way. Most people find the wilderness encounters boring compared to massive dungeons, but I enjoy games where the characters are struggling through the journey. To each their own, yeah?
As a player, I like rules for a different reason that the video presumes. I like them because they give me a framework in which I can plan out my character's abilities beyond a simple one-time use of them, as well as tie the group's abilities in that. I like to design and evaluate "combos", explore synergies, think about which "moves" my character would make. Rules help me evaluate different action and ability combinations outside of the gaming table, then come to the table prepared - with a plan for many situations my characters might find themselves in.
As a writer who has a full time job proofreading, I totally agree with this assessment. At the start of my job, I was so hyper-focused on syntax, grammar, etc, that my anxiety spilled over into how I was learning 5e. It's only in recent years where I've stopped taking the rules of DnD (and arguably my job) quite so seriously that not only are my games infinitely more fun for everyone, but I'm also way more jazzed to write creatively at the end of a working day.
No spoken sentence has ever triggered my taste memory as much as, "You've all had Otter Pops, you know what blue flavor tastes like."
I think one of the biggest example of this is Jeremy Crawford and Chris Perkins running the Acquisition Inc. games. They literally wrote the rules (with a large team behind them of course), and for all that creating the rules is their job, they very clearly play the game for the players to have fun (even Wil Weaton, sore as he is about the whole acid pit thing). My favorite parts of those games are where they crack up because the things the players choose to attempt against the backdrop of they created for the games. And I fully recognize that the Acq. Inc. games are more entertainment than useful ways to learn the game, they very clearly show that D&D and TTRPG's are about having fun with friends. The very same reason I have followed Critical Role. Much as I love Matt and the gang, what they do is equally about the entertainment and not just D&D. Of course it helps that they are entertainers by profession, which elevates their game and the entertainment value of the stories they've told. The Chain is far more D&D and less entertainment, but it is still a group of friends playing in a world to have fun (even when that looks like choosing between dying quickly or dying slowly.)
Grammar and the preservation of grammar are important because the point of written words is communication that exists in permanence. If I didn't care about it lasting forever, or at least a long time, I would just say it; it's quicker. However, if we do not write with correct and reasonable grammar (i.e. grammar that preserves a rational system so future usage can be intuited), it starts to wither on the vine and loses its ability to be enjoyed by people who don't share our cultural space. It's something of a magical thing that you can hear a word that you've never heard before and understand exactly what it means. The reason for that grammar. Grammar is an innate sense of understanding we bring to langauge. It is the cypher we need to make sense of language. Otherwise, we'd have to make up sentence structure every time and establish what structure we are using with our interlocutors.
So, we need to preserve this structure and through pedantry if necessary. We need to be able to understand the past and communicate with the future and if we don't preserve grammar (and logically structured grammar) that doesn't become impossible, but it becomes inaccessable to the majority of people. That's why 18th century philosophy (designed for elite consumption) is more accessable than 16th century theatre (designed for mass consumption).
Beyond that, there are so many cool things you can do with grammar. "Ich schau' dich hinterher" translates into English roughly as "I look back at you as you are in the place from which I am leaving." Because grammar lets you convey information more efficiently, so four words become that. Ich (I) schau (look) dich (at you) hinter (behind) her (indicating direction travelling from). Because of this reason, grammar becomes the engine of eloquence. It determines how things can be said and also gives you the means to subvert expectations -- because there are standard expectations to subvert.
I get it. It's a lot of work to make an undertaking correct-- an idea of correctness that some may even scoff at in its existence. And doubly so if you try to make a grammatically incorrect work correct after the fact. But I don't think people like Shakespeare didn't care about grammar. He played with it too much to be indifferent to it. I think most writers worth their reputation can see grammar for what it is: a tool for conveying information. If a person is really concerned with conveying emotion, then why would they ignore one of the most powerful tools they have? Because some adolescent rebellion against confromity? I don't buy that. I don't think its rational that people like Shakespeare who has been supremely influential in the English language was completely uncaring about the rules of language. I don't believe most authors are like that. Because if they weren't then the langauge wouldn't endure as it has. These people are the models of our appreciation of our own languages. So if they were uniformally uninterested in grammar, then grammar would cease to be important. Because they're the ones communicating with us from the past.
I mean, 3rd edition was tedious, but I've never seen players less imaginative or less invested than in 5th edition. Not even in other systems. It doesn't matter if they are experienced or new, if I'm the DM or not, or what the setting is. There's such a difference. 5th edition just does something to suck all the life out of players. Even I feel it. I don't know what's wrong exactly, but I do know something's off. I've been playing RPGs for over 20 years and I've never seen anything shut players down like 5th edition.
Two years ago, I ran 3.5 for a few players who usually can't be bothered to even name their characters. It was like they were different people. They were all animated, had detailed backstories, constantly talking about the game outside the game. They would gush about their characters and even their builds and the cool shit people were doing. I've had the same thing happen with 4th edition, Shadowrun, Pathfinder, Kids on Bikes, the Marvel Universe Roleplaying system, the Robotech RPG, and the various 40k RPGs.
If I had to guess at the root cause, I would say having to make constant spot rulings annihilates immersion way more than frequently looking up a rules.
I will defend 5th edition to this extent its way more accessible than other versions of DnD and has brought a lot of new players to the hobby. However, I have also seen players with experience in other game systems ultimately be disappointed with 5e though I can't put my finger on it either. Maybe there is a blandness to it? Maybe it's too low risk for the players? Not sure.
@@michaelduke9057 I think the "accessibility" is a function of the problem. In my experience, it's not so much that people pick up the game faster, it's that you don't have to understand the mechanics to play.
@@VegtamTheWonderer I agree it's a tradeoff. At this point, I feel as though naked 5e is underwhelming in a lot of ways, but it's designed so that a beginner can pick it up and learn it easily. Once you have a player trained on the D&D mentality, I think they're due for a switch. 5e is just the launchpad to the next thing. Whether that means 3e, 4e, or some of the crunchier 5.5e supplements is not for me to say. However, I really enjoy the idea that 5e is the core of a modular experience, so you can add crunchier "modules" onto it once players get acclimated to the basics. (I'm very into modding/optimizing parts of 5e to have the kind of crunch it's missing, without losing its simplicity and flexibility.)
I've had the opposite experience lol
Haven't been around as long but I had the displeasure of playing in a pathfinder game and everyone (me and every other player who gets really into character and rp) was bored and playing was a pain.
Turns out having to spend 6 hours to make a character and stopping the game every 5 minutes to check if player A can lift the rock player B can jump the chasm is tedious and terribly unfun.
@@photografo9240 I only see pathfinder 1 and DND 3.5 get bogged down when people keep trying to do stupid crap nobody in that situation would even consider, like trying to actually do a Fastball Special or something stupid like that.
Usually I just ask, "why would your character possibly think that's the best option?" once and people stop doing that kind of garbage and stunlocking the game trying to stretch the rules to do something obviously nonsense.
Or if in a goofball game, nobody cares what the rule is anyway and we go back to making it up on the fly.
Great video, thank you so much for all the videos. This channel has been the single greatest resource for myself as a DM. Whether it be insight on something, leaning something, or simply being given confidence on something by you.
I like the feeling of a fair fight. I have no issue with/as a GM making up stuff before the battle. I just like it being fair once set in motion.
Rules allow fair fights, and add pleasure. I like knowing the rules to be consistent.
But if the GM doesn't care I won't argue.
Consistency is key. A DM once ruled their dragons are vulnerable to lightning. That's fine. I chose spells accordingly. Then we came across another dragon, same colour, same age, but he was immune to lightning. Reason? "Well this one just has it."
If you, as a DM, are training your players on your custom enemies, please do not penalize them when they learn your custom enemies.
Yeah, there's a limit though. I just played a session where a player tried to steer one ship in to another to crush a sea creature, in the astral sea. What are the rules for that?
DM made a ruling, there were some rolls, and it was an awesome moment we'll talk about in the future.
@@ianp7054 "What are the rules for that?". Depends on the system surely? Some systems could have rules for hitting with vehicles, some won't.
I'm saying that the rule existing is always better. Because it allows it to be a balanced choice and helps solidify consistency within the system. A choice made by designers will always be more balanced and consistent then a choice made by me on the fly. Doesn't mean I don't believe in improvising, if I don't know the rule (or it doesn't exist) I must. But knowing the correct rule is significantly better.
@@janfransdevries8032 Agreed. And rules are a good tool to insure the consistency
@@janfransdevries8032 That DM should have told after the second dragon was not affected by the lightning that the first dragon had a curse.
I didn't expect to get life advice when I clicked this video, but thank you for the reminder, Matt, about the rules of a language. I am a bit of a pedant when it comes to language, and I frequently correct people when they make mistakes. I really don't need to, and it is good to hear the reasons one more time explained so eloquently.
Someone going to another person's game and telling them 'you aren't playing it right' is acting the part of an ass. I wish I could remember who said this, just a tickle in the back of my memory so I'll have to paraphrase a lot, but I remember hearing someone on youtube say "Some people need help getting to the point of seeing DnD as real. They use random tables and strict rules as their way of convincing themselves that what happens has meaning, and we CANNOT just leave them behind." I've got two buddies who have taken every single official sourcebook in 3.5 and merged it with first edition pathfinder. Last time they sent me their google doc of the system they made, it was hundreds of pages of balance tweaks and rule changes. I don't play DnD with them because I find no joy in how hardcore every single ruling needs to be, but last I checked they were having a good time. They have stories to tell of things that happened, and each story includes how they used the rules to build up the scenario that occurred. Seems a bit silly to tell them 'you aren't playing it right'
This video is good summary of how you teached me to feel more comfortable while running D&D, because at the beginning I was trying to be so strict to the rules (which resulted having bad time for all) and after listenting to your videos on my way to work/home i builded up more confidence in just making on the fly things that will suit the action more if I and my players are not sure how rules will deal with our shenanigans. So thanks
I call myself a rules monkey because I like knowing the rules and believe they help facilitate fun. If I'm a player and I notice an inconsistency I've developed a habit of asking if it was an intentional choice for something to work x way.(not in a rude way of course, just so I know if I should drop the issue or not) Most of the time its been an error and things are corrected. I like to keep things fair on both sides of the table. Of course if the dm is clear about certain rulings I never push it.
Really great video. I had the advantage of DMing pre first edition. I learned to DM by understanding the underlying intent of the game. My groups had a wonderful time playing in second edition and I remember a time when the players were navigating a ledge in a cavern and had to leap across several small breaks. I just told them "don't roll a one". The players suddenly feared their situation as seriously as facing a dragon and cheered each success. I knew would allow a last ditch grasp of the ledge if they failed and that there was water at the bottom, but they didn't. I finally stopped DMing for a while in 3rd edition because players seemed to want rules over fun and there were too many books to keep track of the rules.
This all reminds me of freshman English in college. I had a teacher correct a paper I had written. I went to her and argued that I had written a part intentionally "wrong" to make a point. After convincing her that I knew the "correct" rules, she relented and I never had a problem with her afterwards.
Wow, Matt looks so… professional in a polo.
But not too professional. Like a good middle manager.
@@thecoolerrats7144 Like a retail boss who will let you leave work early to pick up your kid from school.
@@Drekromancer or the down to earth owner of a small business…hey, wait…
So I like the message, but there is a way that 3e rules *can* be very fun (or Pathfinder, I mostly play PF):
1) Playing with people who aren't rules lawyers
2) Using the broad rules system as inspiration. Don't look things up in the moment, make a ruling but then look up the rules after and use that to expand your rules vocab. What this does is give you a (supposedly) robust way of doing something you might have to homebrew. Wanna run a rebellion? There's a system for that. Wanna do gladiatorial performance combat? There's a system for that. Wanna build a settlement? There's a system for that. It lets you take a character/campaign concept and ground it in something tangible immediately with explicit options for expressing yourself within those concepts.
Wow it seems when I need to hear something as a DM, Matt swoops in and tells it to me. Thank you 😊
"Your ruling may not be "correct," but it will be "good". Your players will think "that's fair" and you can move on."
Love this quote!
The key is fairness through the players eyes, that is what makes it "good". A ruling can be good enough in the DM's eyes, but to make it a true success, there needs to be a level of assent from the players. Forgive the social studies teacher rant here, but that is part of the reason why we teach about philosophers like John Locke, our modern conceptions of goodness and fairness in western society are so linked to the consent of the governed that even a benevolently divine right styled DM will potentially come across as capricious or patronizing.
For example: A rule enforced consistently, but that is perceived as unfairly disadvantaging players, will create bitter and resentful players. They won't trust your game because it feels like you're trying to "win" and make them "lose", or ruin their fun in some way.
Additionally, an unfair ruling in the players favor can be perceived as bad because the players feel they are getting away with something. Drama and tension dies, verisimilitude is broken, and the players check out. They have seen the little man behind the curtain and feel let down.
That is why when I make a ruling at the table I admit that "this is what I think" and I allow my players to disagree. I ask "does this seem fair to everyone?" And if it doesn't, I give them space to be heard. I may still make the ruling for the time being, but I tell my players that we will revisit this next session after I've gotten to look up the rules. I invite any player who felt aggrieved by my ruling to help me remember to look up the issue so we can have a fair and consistent ruling that we all buy into. They feel a sense of ownership in the game at that point. It starts to become more of our world instead of just my world.
Not all players can be satisfied by this, however. Some players desperately hold to the sense of safety they get from the "objectivity" and "rightness" found in the written word (be it game rules, constitutions, scriptures, whatever). Such player personalities, if inflexible, may never be satisfied by a homebrew ruling; even if everyone else at the table sees it as consistent, fair, and good. Such personalities may simply not mesh with the game you run. And that is okay.
I feel a need to explain that some of us pedants enjoy a good story immensely, but as we are running with a story, we trip and lose immersion when we encounter a misspelling or a grammar error. I can’t help this, this is who I am and it’s weird to me that other people don’t take psychic damage when they read a typo. I’m sure there are some joyless pedants out there, but I’m a joyful pedant.
Love your stuff
I think this is probably your most important video on dungeon mastering. The various communities all sprout rule lawyers when new DMs ask for advice. Many times the advice these new DMs need is the importance of communication and getting the drama to flow at the table instead of advanced rulings. Nice one Matt!!
I have no idea where I fall in this analysis. I'm equally very invested in following the rules as written and running a good, fun game for my players. I'm the type of guy who tries his best to follow all the rules of language _because_ I'm kind of paranoid that I'm not communicating clearly otherwise.
I deeply appreciate this video because I think it makes clear that understanding the intention behind the design is far more important than understanding the rules which sprung forth from said intention.
I totally agree,just like to add one thing: if rules are language, in my humble opinion it is totally fine to change some grammar to fit your goal, but it is not really fair to switch just to made up gibberish, people can't understand any more or switch to a way of speaking, no everyone likes. I really dislike rules lawyers at my table, but just as mutch I dislike self proclaimed "artists" who just don't care about the rules ur consistency at all. (Example is not from DnD) Player 1: "Can I stab the orc in the eye to insta kill it?" "Artist DM: "Of cause you can, just make an attack roll, slightly harder, my game my rules lol." Player 2 who spent literally XP to master a special "stabbing for vulnerable places" feat: *grumble*. You can totally make your own rulings, but please check, wich kind of play your players like and in which rules they are in vested/they trust.
Edidt: missed Matts comment, he says it better than me :)
The point at 10:35 about the difference in the PURPOSE OF RULES between competitive board games/sports vs. RPGs is such an important point that I've never heard more clearly articulated than right here in this video. It really sums up the whole issue.
My main issue and conflict that occurs that gets me upset with a DM is rules that involve player abilities. A player creates a character looks over the abilities and how they work ( or how they think it works) roleplays their character then in that crucial moment of time the DM doesn't follow the rules as written and makes up a rulling ( either because they don't know the rule or don't like it.) Well the player suddenly feels upset and confused because either their ability doesn't work now the way it's suppose to and now doesn't know how their ability will work. One school of thought is well the DM is right don't rules lawyer. This ignores the fact the player knew the rule. Sights what they read and understood but the DM still rules against them because we'll they don't want to be bothered with rules. So the player is now scratching their head. Well how does my ability work. This then destroys the flow of the game to the player and the enjoyment. On top of that perhaps reason why they chose that class to play. This is the problem between no real rules when they involve player ability and the economy of their action. There needs to be some sort of set rules that is agreed upon by the DM and players. I not to comfortable with a DM who just seems to be making up rulings on the fly.
I started DMing in February after never having encountered the game before, now I'm running 2 games, both of which are going swimmingly and I have to say 80% of the credit goes to Matt Colville. I didn't even need to watch this video because I think after binge watching the Running the Game playlist about 3 times, I can tap into my brain's Colville chamber and ask "what would Colville do"?
(Matt if you're reading this, you may soon be partially responsible for hundreds of Namibians getting into this game... If my plan goes according to itself.) Thank you man. You are making the world a better place, 20 minutes at a time.