Відео

I want to specify that the houses and apartments my character helped build were built off the beach into the forested area we had clear cut.

Jacob constantly makes call backs to past rules, its why he takes such an issue with them because individually most of these rules arent THAT bad but when stacked on top of eachother it makes an extremely oppressive game. Idk where you got that he doesn't call back to past rules, its why he keeps bringing back up the "bashing your face into every wall and acting out your rolls" bit

My biggest gripe about this I think is that you kept accusing Jacob of imagining context that wasn't there while you kept doing the exact thing you're accusing him of

All in all your arguments make logical sense (for the most part) but when applied in a practical sense they fall apart. What Jacobs saying doesn't always make logical sense but when practically applying the rules as they are literally written what he says very much makes sense

For the "Don't roll and then say what you're doing" one I understand where you're coming from but it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what Jacob said. He specifically referred to Fireball, a spell that the player does not make a roll for. The DM has to roll because whoever/whatever is in the radius of that attack has to make a roll to dodge it. You said in the beginning you don't know D&D very well so this misunderstanding makes sense but Jacob even said he agrees with this rule, he never said anything about making the DM roll for everything

On the "You must act out persuasion, etc." Bit, you said we dont have the context to say the DM expects players to get up and try to intimidate them if they want an intimidation roll but we do, the rule itself literally says it

The "if you think my rules are unfair then I'll leave" one definitely was about the rules, not the players disagreeing with rolls. Theres not a lot of room for interpretation there so idk what you mean when you say he "went off the rails" with his reaction to that rule

Sheepy shooting at us more then just for "Justice."

your friends are funny

After these sessions, I finally retired the laser robot. It is of the devil. =O

This video showcases how awful most people are at reading things as they are written. The way they were meant. Literacy seems to be at an all time low for some reason. Regardless, I think you did a fantastic job pointing out inaccuracies while not being rude nor hostile, which is commendable because I know I would not be able to do the same if the person acted this smug. You were even TOO fair to Jacob, with the way he presented some of those points. For example, at 48:10, it is very clear from the way it's written that it is in character, because they phrased it the way they did - "to an npc" - not about an npc.

Everytime : "MR MATT YOUR LASER SET ME ON FIRE!" Mr Matt : *surprised Pikachu face* "Whaaaaat?"

I'm someone who hasn't played a lot of dnd so this rule list is super off putting. Threatening to drive home or fight players irl is a massive red flag. It is a game, and don't villianize me for saying this, but ultimately I feel like a DMs job should be to make sure their group has fun, not stroke their own ego. Some of the dnd community is way too up tight it's unhealthy.

Thanks for your reaction. I saw the original video and it bugged me as well. It came off as a guy trying to workshop his next (in my opinion, incredibly unfunny) UA-cam comedy skit rather than someone who was actually trying to engage with the content he was presenting. I admire how generous you were being to him hahah.

Charlie Foxtrot when?

Christ, it's embarrassing how stupid Jacob is. A lot of these are extremely autistic misunderstandings of what the angry DM wrote.

XP To Level 3's take was completely, embarrassingly smugnorant. He sucks ass, and i can never take him seriously again. Like a child.

I think this video was extremely fair to XP to Level 3. The GM who made the list of rules sounds like he's going super-authoritarian in his rule changes, but the context given by that list implies that he was surrounded by players who were drugged out of their minds, wandering around whimsically, not paying attention to the game and cheating regularly enough that rules had to be made about it. There was never any attempt throughout the entirety of XP to Level 3's take that he considered these aspects. I would hope that - as you suggested - he made the video at different times, and thus forgot some of the previous rules, but as the video goes on, he references old rules again in excruciating detail during his (essentially) bullying idea near the end of his video, showing that he *does* in fact remember the prior rules. I've seen a few of his other videos and I liked them, but what I saw was all comedy-based and pretty funny. While his "44 Rules" video does have a few comedic bits to it, I agree with you that the take seems to be almost completely serious, especially considering XP to Level 3's apparent frustration and comments about the rules. If he'd gone full-bore at the comedy angle, a bad take could have been hilarious and harmless, but as of the time of my writing this comment, he is giving mixed messages to more than 800,000 people, speaking out of one side of his mouth to tell them to be more communicative to improve such a situation, but out of the other, excitedly stating how much fun it would be to effectively enrage this GM on purpose. Moreover, he says it while completely dismissing any likely unacceptable behavior by the players. I expected better of someone who seems to have a lot of GM/player experience like XP to Level 3, and I hope that his viewers who see that video don't bring the bullying behaviors into games which he proposed. Although this video was quite lengthy, I feel that it gave the time and attention necessary to address each point XP to Level 3 made while being fair. I thought it was a great video and appreciate you taking the time to make it. Hopefully folks find it and give it a watch!

I think something else was missed, it's the player who is posting this as such they might not have worded this the way the GM said it. This would also explain why they removed it.

Yeah, I am starting to see how this is crap in turning from criticizing the list to criticizing the GM as author of the list. Sure, the rule seem awful to me but I am not the indented audience; these awful rules may have been the correct response to whatever was going on in that group. To me, the GM is extraordinarily not 15 years old, this is a busy person in their 30s/40s that has has like 3 hours for gaming per week and if they turn into 30 minutes net gaming time because the rest of group is doing [things mentioned in the rules] the person has far better things to do. The GM has respect for their time and effort and while this list might be overreaction, they still (as a person) have a "right" to have fun while GMing (and no obligation to GM if they don't agree with given groups play style).

So, reason I made this video was because I agreed that conversation is important in TTRPG groups, and I took objection to the way this video presented the context of these rules. I think it was a mistake, and a small one at that, but I really didn't like how the DM who made the rules was villainised, and the players assumed to be victims to the "Evil, Toxic DM". I don't think it was on purpose, I think it just snowballed into a really bad overall take-away, and I think it probably seemed like an easy video to make at face value. Unfortunately, we've all experienced miscommunication or a passive-aggressive table that just goes to shit. I don't think this video helped anything, so I decided to break it down, and see if I could get some good points and thoughts out of it. End of the day, i'm probably just upset about the British thing! :D