Just since a lot of people are wondering-this video is slightly sped up (4%) because UA-cam Shorts have to be 60 seconds or less. The regular speed video is also on our channel posted as a normal UA-cam video if you want to watch it, I just also wanted to share Matt’s advice with the YT Shorts Audience. Full video here: ua-cam.com/video/rZh8Lfh_Ojc/v-deo.htmlsi=vx3utIgNfqFfIz_C
This is actually a very good quote, most of the once I see seem kinda like just basic shit like "do good dont do bad", which this still is, but it has competence
I love Brennan’s example. If Sam told Frodo “I can’t carry the ring, but I can carry you!” And the DM said to make a strength check, that would kind of dilute the experience.
Failing checks are not instant automatic fails. DM may choose to allow it but add a negative caveat For example, your rogue wants to pick a lock. You know there's no way in hell they'll fail to open it, so if they roll low, you may go "You open up the door, but the clatter seemed to wake up the guard", instead of a bland "you couldn't do it"
There are cool moments tou just want the player to succeed, but there should be a possibility of failure or only a partial success. If I always succeed becuase it is "cool", it dilutes the experience when you actually do succeed. You rolled a 19, but I would.have just allowed an auto success if you had done something crazy.
Except he often says it for things that are RAW and on multiple occasions has denied something allowed by the rules because he wasn't 100% on the rule. I feel like Mercer is one of the most by the book DMs I've seen in a real play game and the times where he says "sorry" with that cheeky grimace when a player tries to bend their mechanics just a little bit has turned me away from CR tbh. Sometimes it feels like he's gatekeeping fun until it's an idea he thinks is good instead of letting his players run the show. Matt is exemplary at many things as a dm but improvising and allowing his players to "bend the rules" is not one of them. All imo tho obv
I always tell my players, "Tell me why it should work," and they actually always give me an in-universe explanation, and I tell them what to roll to make it work. I even let other players roll to help them. My key is, I always have them describe why it should work like that, and we have not yet had to break a rule intentionally, just bend them a lot.
It is a very good way to make the game move with a good flow and make it fun for everybody. I think the most common case with this in my games are with skill checks. I play a game that has maaaany skills (almost 30), so although this makes them more specific, it creates more overlap in the mind of players. So it is always cool to see them getting creative to justify how that skill would work for that specific case if they did this or that, or if they combine it with an item or a pet ability etc.
That's RAW, you're not supposed to be allowed to roll until you explain exactly what you're doing, this is part of the issue with charisma checks oftentimes, you need to make the argument, and the roll is any unseen circumstances that might effect it, with 10 heing flat neutral, when no factors are effecting it one way or the other, and your modifier is how well you can do it relative to that flat 10 Those unforeseen or uncontrollable factors may by the minutiae of how tired you are, or the person you're talking to might just be really bored, your knife might have dulled a bit more than you thought since the last sharpening, or what have you, that's what the roll represents, not whether it's possible or not Whether it's possible or not ultimately comes down to whether the gm is convinced it's possible in their story, and that's it in dnd5e, if this were pf1e, you could oftentimes go into the specifics and make an argument to say this is or isn't possible based on the rules, because pf1e is a good simulationist system, but dnd5e is one of the worst simulationist systems out there, best played like a narrative system instead, heck, inspiration is a meta currency, the defining factor of those systems, tho it's not great as one of those either, being in an awkward middleground, where the control is largely taken away from the players and given to the gm, but without the tools to gamify the narrative in its place, but that same setup means it looks very approachable, and can easily be misunderstood to be something completely different than what it is, giving it very broad appeal
lol, that is literally the very first rule in the 1e of DnD It’s literally just a game of pretend, the rules are there to make it so you can’t have the “everything proof shield” that ruins the fun for everyone but that one kid
I've seen this in Brennan's DMing style. He let a lot of "you know what ? I'll allow it, it looks fun" stuff, and I actually hope that it will help me be like this with my players
@@squattingheads There is because even very malleable rules still give some structure and tension. Maybe improv with dice randomized moments and suggested lines? Then why not to play DnD? :-D
the was a moment in Dungeons & Drag Queens where Bob wanted to use their Shield spell to protect another character, and Breen started with like 'Sorry that's not how it...' and quickly was like "No, you know what? Fuck it, I don't want that rule to be true right now." and allowed an arcana check to modify their spell.
@@squattingheadsI mean then just play baldurs gate 3, why let players any human leeway at all, have a computer do the rules? Brennan also disallows stuff as well.
This is why the GM must be a person. An automated system has no ability to allow rules to be bent, broken or even ignored. Playing ( and running the game) is a social event, where everyone interacts and progress the story OR even ignore the story and wander off to make a new story.
This is a very short-sighted take, honestly. It's already possible for an automated system to break rules. You can talk to an AI bot right now, create a game, lay down some rules and tell it to bend or break them when it seems like it might be more entertaining, and it will. The systems aren't perfect, but they're absolutely in place and tech advances quickly. The reason people are quick to assume this isn't possible is because they believe it requires a machine to break its programming, but this isn't the case. The trick is merely to emulate human behaviour. We're already seeing this in its most basic form in chess bots that are intentionally coded not to play optimally, and in games with AI storytellers overseeing the narrative, such as RimWorld. From their perspective, rules technically aren't being broken, but from our point of view it's pretty convincing.
@Squant A chess bot playing non optimally is surely quite simple from a rules perspective. They already have the ability to identify moves and rank them for which is the best move, it's then just a case of choosing a less optimal move down the list, assuming they already have an ordered list of moves in any situation. This is different entirely to telling an AI to bend a rule when it makes it fun. How does an AI know what is fun?
@@mdrlolcat how do you show an AI how a game is fun. There's lots of types of fun and people enjoy different things. It would have to be trained to play the game and also read the code and know how to match the gameplay to the code. Doesn't sound simple at all to me. This would also vary wildly depending on the control scheme and genre of the game. I think we're not close to this type of technology for games in general
Additionally, as a player, I feel like it kind of also falls on us to learn the rules in terms of, How we can best utilize them to our advantage, Possibly to the point of being able to pull up some pretty silly stunts. In this way we can help create fun for ourselves and each other, Manipulate the rules to our advantage so that the DM doesn't feel too conflicted, And possibly encourage them to think outside the box a little bit.
I had the honor of getting to play once in an adventure Gary ran and the guy was a very old school, off the cuff DM. The rules are guidelines not set in stone
This is why I'm always too scared to join my first game. Worried I'd be so green I'd ruin the experience for everyone else. Nice to know some DMs are more lenient about the rules.
I've only ever home-brewed, and my own game I completely scrapped the base magic rules because to me they made no sense, and built a different system that is easier for me as a newer DM to manage and my players enjoy more
To quote this single sentence from the AD&D DMG Afterword - without mentioning the rest of the paragraph - would be to rob Gygax’s statement of its context: “As you HEW THE LINE with respect to CONFORMITY to major systems and UNIFORMITY of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS. Within the broad parameters given in the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons volumes, you are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons as it was meant to be.“ Conclusions: 1) This sounds more like a reference to the final say DMs have in the interpretation of the rules, which discretion is to be exercised in “the spirit of the game.” It is *not* a suggestion that DMs should tinker with an intricate and interdependent system like AD&D unless they knew the rules inside out - and even then, it should never be done for the sake of one player’s short-term enjoyment (“game (i.e. rules) first, campaign next, participants thereafter”). 2) “Fun” (which no “Rule 0” advocate defines anyway) is not mentioned anywhere, whereas much greater priority is conferred on the overall harmony of the game and its rules. Even the campaign as a whole is said to take precedence over individual player desires - which are often preoccupied with the sort of rapid PC advancement that harms campaigns. 3) It therefore seems that what Gygax refers to as “the spirit of the game” is not “Disregard and bend the rules if they get in the way of player fun” at all, but constitutes in his intention for writing a particular rule (like the Founding Fathers with the Constitution). 4) From this emerges the prescription of an obligation upon DMs to master the game’s rules and impose them upon the campaign and its players with carefully applied discretion in their interpretation. The handwaving of rules common to the average DM may seem like fun-loving, anything-goes self-confidence, but in truth it is lazy: the fact of the matter is that it is *hard* to truly master a game like D&D. People who use the “spirit over letter” quote are advised to read the introduction to the AD&D DMG, which leaves no doubt as to what intentions Gygax had had for AD&D.
@Darksnowman13 I mean in fairness he's right. Gary was not a big proponent of the "rules are more guidelines" style of DMing, and the original quote is absolutely taken out of context
"If you wanna be really good at music, you should follow the rules, because it sounds good. But if you wanna be extremely good at music, then you break the rules and it still sounds good."
Same with fighting (hands up, foot work, ect), you want to learn the rules and master them, but sometimes you gotta break those rules for your advantage. Sometimes, putting the hands down and letting them throw the punch gives you a chance to slip for that hook to the head or body.
Will Wood is an excellent example of breaking the rules and making excellent music. He can sing and play the piano at insanely fast rates (and he can’t even read music)
I love that you brought him up as an example actually, one of my closest friends, DM, and fellow player in another campaign is a massive will wood fan, she introduced me to him and his style of "bashing the keys and screaming" as she put it just fits perfect for the both of us being long time punk and metal heads. I recently finished my first year in college and I studied music as a minor, jazz particularly, because I am heavily influenced by the jazz philosophy on everything whether its jazz, fusion, metal, prog, rock, blues, edm, hip hop, punk, folk, trap, indie, etc. These are all huge influences I want to blend in the future and jazz was the logical focal point to everything I value in music. I studied it for a year, got to know a lot of great information, and I will never do it again. Its a level of surgical, a level of science in music theory, and I think while its study can breed truly incredible musicians, its not for everyone and its not for me. You get a firm grasp on the on the mechanics of singing, playing, producing, you get solid on techniques, and you get a basic grasp on what theory is, from there, the stars themselves are yours to take. @@norsethenomad5978
Perfectly said. A lot of people nowadays say "you dont need to learn music theory, that old crap is not needed anymore". They miss the entire point. You need to know the rules before you can break them and twist them to your advantage.
@@J.R.Swish1 100% You have to know how to sound good first. Then you can sound good in unique ways after that, by possibly breaking some rules. That's when you become MORE than just good.
This is why he's the best DM ever. He makes it fun for both the people who are veterans at DND as well as those who aren't quite sure of how it works. Love you, Matt
A great example of this (spoilers for campaign 2) was Yasha's journey to being able to weild the dawnbreaker. Originally only being able to be used by paladins, Matt and Ashely sought to make it actually work through role-playing and various sequences for yasha to become a champion/paladin for her God. That is the kind of DM I strive to be one day
Great example. I think the part that a lot of people try to gloss over is that both the DM *and* Player put in the work towards making that rules allowance "work" in the context of their campaign. I see far too many players crying "bad DM" because the DM asked them to meet them halfway.
The most important thing is to understand the spirit of the rules. As long as you know what the rule is there for then you can bend or break it to keep the fun rolling
Yeah, like how a lot of magic items have extremely stupid stipulations, like. "You can't tell this is cursed because Identify doesn't detect curses." or "Dust of Sneezing and Choking, which can kill you if you don't succeed the save, is completely indistinguishable from Dust of Disappearance, and even outright lies to an Identify spell." The spirit of the rule is, in essence, "screw you for playing this game, you suck", so it's important to always break it.
I love how that’s his biggest rule. He’s playing rule maker for his friends not the whole world. He can say yes to whatever he wants because he wants his friends to have fun. I love how he’s not the rules lawyer he’s the rule controller/keeper. So if he feels the rules need to be bent or twisted they can be.
I’d say he’s like a judge in court. XD Rules apply to everyone, but sometimes its okay to bend them. I dont think most judges will send a first time offender to prison or jail over a candy bar, they might be able to legally but it helps no one, a bit of community service, a fine, or something might do just fine, as well as asking a persons intent logic and reasoning can sometimes matter.
When I'm explaining how to GM to newbies I always say that your most important role as a GM is as a Referee. You have to know the rules and decide when, where and how to beat apply them to keep the game flowing, to service the story, and enhance the fun of the table.
@@MagiofAsuraI do believe math is the single worst field you could have used as an example. If you can break the rules of math, then you either learned math wrong, or have discovered an error that changes the entire landscape of mathematics as we know it. You do not break the rules of math.
@@thatguythere6161Math is actually a pretty good example because every rule in the field of mathematics has an exception of sorts that can be exploited when needed sometimes.
@@UserofUA-camMobileThe subjective part of fun makes it a bit problematic elsewhere Serial killers have fun doing their thing, but they probably shouldn't lol
@doublewhopper67 Rule: one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity. Now, let's use this definition in the context of creating art. In the frame of reference of Painting, which is a very legitimate form of art. You have plenty of rules rules which are created not by the arbitrary human psyche but by nature, itself. How light works, for example. The way it reflects off of an apple is very different from the way it reflects off of a sphere of metal, and depending on how many light sources there are, it completely changes how it looks. In order to draw or paint a subject like that, you have to understand fundamentally how light works. Then, after years of learning how light works, you can start to bend the rules within your paintings because you understand the nature of light fundamentally, which is not a set of norms but rules. In order for J.M.V. Turner to paint Regulus, he would have needed to have a deep understanding of how light functions in order to capture the form of intensity that he desired for his painting. In fact, more fundamentally, if he didn't know the rule, that's squares and rectangles are 4 lines conjoined at a 90° angle he wouldn't have been enabled to paint the buildings in Regulas. Now, let's look at Picasso. In order for him to have made his paintings, he would have too understand the shapes of what he was making, let's say a Human, he would have to understand the general geometry of a human being in order to contort it in a way that invoked emotion while still looking human. Well, each human is beautifully unique. They still have a general geometry that makes them human. So now there are no norms, there are rules. They exist because they create a level of coherency, and if treated as norms, then you can go willy-nilly with anything, just make modern art. Make some modern art so that way, billionaires can not pay their taxes, so that way criminals can get away with laundering money, all while you enjoy the same exact movie Marvel has made after Endgame because they follow a norm, not the rules of making a good film 😉.
Seems like you don't have a player who's fun is to find every loosely worded rule or class features that can break your game. You made cool magic items? The Artificer scoffs, saying at Lv:6 he can make even more broken stuff for free.
@OrangeDragon04 This short and comment is very much in the context of story craft and world building as an art form. Read the room. Also, I have had those players. Someone is able to boost their AC to 31? Have them roll saves every once in a while. Is someone using the combo of pole arm master and sentinel? Pelt them with arrows. They have both? An encounter where a mage dominates them against their party will be terrifying fun that your group surely will remember. These are adventurers. By level 3, they'll be the talk of the local neighborhood at least. Someone will surely then know not to get close to the guy with the pole arm, and if they do let them have it, they earned it. You sound like the person who places all their combat encounters and a flat 90×90 plane and then complains that 5e combat is boring and dull. Sure, 3 giant wolf spiders on a field is mellow dramatic, but put that battle on a cliff side that a lower level party is climbing up, and oh boy, will the group be sweating. Also, not every encounter has to have counters to your party members, just enough to keep them on their toes. Let them have those strengths that can shine through every once in a while. If I hear one more person complain that 5e combat is too easy or boring when they don't even make a Dragon's lair lethal independent of the Dragon being there then I'll smack them with a 2e book, so that way they can read that designing encounters that way is what you are supposed to do.
@@Arius_Astronomy Gods no, 5e's combat is great. I do place obstacles on the map, hight differences, traps or pools of water. The thing is, I hardly ever get to do combat that is planned. Or show any world building or main story quests I've written. Usually the party fights guards, because 2 dudes took the "you can do whatever you want" aspect too literally and tried to threaten a shopkeeper with a weapon. Or straight up kill him. And now the story can't happen. Sure, it's not all bad, I have 2 maybe 3 players who do care about the world building. I solved the murder hobo problem by splitting the party into two groups. Good and evil, which sorta worked, but it is a double edged sword. It creates places and characters who have plot Armor, because a player meets them later in the timeline of the other group's story. So there's the middle fingers pointed at me for making an unkillable NPC that runs as soon as any form of combat occurs, cannot be killed by stealth or has an item which he or she gives to the other group later in the timeline. Because of the delay, just last week we managed to get to story points heavily tied to the PC's backstories. Well those who do have one that doesn't change every session to suit the need. (The story beat was written almost a year ago and could've happened maybe around the start of April) What should I do in this situation? The murder hobos do a lot of damage by slowing things down, but they also have their bright moments, like the time they spent an entire session talking to a foreign shopkeeper. Or the time they made a living tavern owner and a confused ghost tied to an old sword into great friends. Should I grid my teeth and hope it will get better or a more radical solution like making consequences more harsh than just an occasional bounty hunter, town guard or a curse? Oh and I must humbly protest. What the players can or cannot do using class abilities can harm story writing very much. For example if a blacksmith takes months to create a mighty sword that will later be blessed by clerics. It loses all it's wow effect and rarity if an artificer can spend some gold, wave his hand and make it in a long rest. I don't mind combos made for combat, but world building breakers, I do mind very much, sadly there's not much I can do without being an Evil DM who'd restrict his players too much.
My favorite time i broke the rules for my players is allowing a construct tame a mimic by feeding it and nat 20 am animal handling check. I was going to make the mimic attack them but i couldnt say no after the 20. The mimic's name is Hazel, she is a ring the construct wears and they are the best of friends
I DM'd a game where the newly formed low level party were facing a Slaadpole (basically from what I read about it, a big unformed temporal frog/tadpole thing?) The slaadpole pole would vanish/teleport short distances while it thrashed about. We had an Eladrin in the party that could Fey Step and wanted to attack the Slaadpole in the fey dimension as it vanished. I thought this was a badass idea and whether or not that would work in the rules I wasn't about to start reading up on where do slaadpoles "go" when they teleport. The eladrin roled high enough on their checks and timed the attacks to slice through as the enemy shifted past as an attack of opportunity. Everyone was very impressed it worked and it stopped the Slaadpole shifting for a few turns to make the battle easier. Cool>Rule always haha
That made sense though. As a wizard it's not like you are warping into your familiar's body and obtaining their attributes or stat block skills, you're basically just creating a blind spot in their minds that replaces all of those natural abilities with what YOU as the wizard are capable of doing. Hence why Liam from a game play perspective could direct and give Frumpkin orders but not be allowed to control him. It's not possession, it's clairvoyance essentially. Also cat stat block doesnt have night vision. I get how that can be an easy call by the DM to just give dark vision to a cat but it DOES seem valid to rule it out for the case of how a wizard familiar works.
@@ryanbontrager5700Cats not having night vision is probably the dumbest, simplest and one of the most annoying mistakes in 5e because it comes up quite frequently (familiar and wild shape for example) and everyone assumes that they can see at night because most people have real life experience with them and then are surprised when the game tells them they don't have access to it. Especially when animals like badgers have it who have worse sight, not just at night (their sense of smell is better tho).
That mentality also applies to thinking before employing house rules when starting the campaign. Was part of a 5E campaign with a DM that exclusively ran Pathfinder prior. So he brought over Pathfinder's Crit Confirm rule into 5E without bringing any of the other systems that boosted how strong crits were (i.e. the built-in crit modifiers for weapons) so it just sapped all the joy out of rolling a nat 20 in combat by the end of even just the first session. It was addressed as an issue, but they refused to budge on the matter. Campaign fell apart two sessions later.
Ooooh, this explains a lot. There definitely have been moments in CR where I though "hm, sticking to RAW felt a bit unnecessarily strict here". Sucks he felt pressured into it but good to know he has grown past it.
It would help if it's explicitly acknowledged. "According to the rules, this is supposed to happen. But I like your idea better, and it makes enough logical sense. I'll allow it."
@@theuncalledfor If you watched the show and know even basic rules of D&D, you'd understand just from the way he says it. It's not his fault you aren't getting subtle clues in his expressions or tone.
Some advice i was given when i started DMing that i find to be the most helpful was this "Being a good DM isn't about enforcing the rules it's about knowing when to break them"
The thing to remember is this applies to the DM as well. A lot of players like to try and stomp all over the rules and the DM and end up ruining the game for them.
When I had someone recently approach me about wanting to be a GM I told him that the most important thing about being a GM is for everyone - including the GM to have fun
I'm always willing to break a rule to further the story or give a player a moment. Example: A bard in the group was engaged in heated confrontation with an evil priest. He asked the priest, "Are you willing to die for your god?" The reply (obviously) was, "Of course". The player stood up and slapped me in the chest and screamed, "Feign Death!" I was so taken aback (and the priest was a minor enemy) that I let him have it.
I love his “you know what. I’ll allow it” then Sam says. No mat if that doesn’t work. And then Matt says. It’s ok you described how this would work I’ll allow it. Or Liam doing the same. It’s a good group. Matt’s knowledge of the rules is amazing. Helps the games run smoothly but also allows for bending and breaking when it makes sense or would be fun. Which is what he says when it happens.
I was dming for my friends in Curse of Strahd. They were facing the monster at the end of Death House, and one of my players was playing a blood hunter. The crimson rite they took was the one that gave their weapons lightning damage, and the boss of Death House has lightning absorption. That was when we realized that Crimson Rite doesn’t have a way for you to turn it off until you finish a short or long rest. Instead of making her fight that thing while healing it at the same time, we just quickly homebrewed a way to turn it off, by taking 1 die of your hemocraft damage. They won, but even then it was a nail biter, and one of the party members died. If they had to damage that thing while one of their teammates was kinda healing it, I think it would have been a TPK.
Good work. Btw rite turns off if your let go of the weapon. So in RAW there is already a way... drop your weapon and pick it up. You could then roll the hemocraft dice to start another rite if you wanted...
It's literally in the D&D books that the "rules" are meant to be bent, and that they act more like guidelines to help you understand how to play and have a basic system.
Isn't the golden rule at the start of the handbooks "The DM's word surpasses all, including all written rules" or something like that? Or am I imagining that being in the handbooks?
@@megaing1322not imagining. this was the heart of the game according to originator gary gygax. seems this part gets list the further away from his owning the game we get.
Yeah, but there are a LOT of gaming elitists out in the world who think that the way THEY play the game is the only 'right way', and tend to try to run down others who play differently. Mercer's comment about people on the internet being upset with his DMing style is in reference to those kinds of people.
I don't know who needs to hear this (other than a person I know who will never see this), but this is even more true when your house rule prevents someone from having fun.
matt mercer has been my guiding light as a DM since i started a few years ago and thanks to having such a good guideline my players have enjoyed my games as a DM and i have had plenty of great stories with others.
@@benpurcell4935 yeah when i started i looked up and found a reddit log with him answering all kinds of DM questions from all kinds of interviews and what not lol
In music theory, you have to know the rules before you can break them. Twain also said, “First get your facts, then distort them at your leisure.” Matt embodies these perfectly; he is both an expert and an artist. He has both knowledge and feel. He runs the game and he runs the show.
its fine to bend rules but you best know when to hold em and know when to fold em. some people like to have their fun at the expense of the fun of others.
Thank you Mercer for dropping that “rules rule”! Knowledge…once I started doing that, way back in the day: the game opened up in so many ways! Best advice ever!
And this is why the "Matt Mercer Effect" is a problem. Because this "Don't be a hardass for rules" works great with _their_ group. But the moment you get one asshole player that constantly just wants to be the main character of the party you're gonna have a bad time. Because now that you've set the precedent that "Rules are more guidelines", the rest of your players will argue against you and for main character player because "You let us do X in the past". I'd say if you're going to bend or break a rule then you need to be willing to break it or bend every time it comes up in the future. Because if you give your players that in the past they are going to want to do it again at some point. Basically, sometimes, you just do need to be a hardass. Otherwise everyone is just playing make believe and not, ya know, playing DnD.
The really hard call is when you want to be flexible for one player but another has been either leaning into those specific rules for their character mechanics or has been quietly observing those rules when they also would have benefited from flexibility and just never thought to ask. If a president has been set at your table, even if you weren't aware of it, be cautious in breaking it.
People need to understand that just because you want to do something "cool" outside of the rules, doesn't mean the GM is obligated to let you do it. For one, just because YOU think it's cool, it doesn't mean it actually IS cool. Secondly, that's how you end up with a free-for-all game where the rules end up not mattering at all, and you end up just playing a circle jerk, power fantasy, make believe story session.
The rules are there to make DMing easier, in the end the DM is the final judge. If a rule doesn't make sense in a situation, then it's time for a improvised homebrew exception.
The important thing is to remember *why* you follow the rules in the first place. The whole point is to have structure and internal consistency and so on in your game. That said, if a player comes up with a fun and creative idea, and the request sounds perfectly reasonable to you, then go ahead and bend the rules to accomodate their moment.
I like this the rule of cool advice you always hear is vague for newcomers and creates the ideal if every second of the game is not a fun the DM is wrong for enforcing basic rules. I'm not changing every spell because you think it should work the way you think it should. You cant polymorph in a dragon at level 3, but maybe we can lift some unnecessary restrictions through story and roleplay.
@@michealball1896 I agree and I feel it is important to reward players for the options they pick. If people want to transform into animals early they need to pick a druid. But perhaps a dragonborn with "Circle of the Moon" could choose a dragon form instead of just beasts using Wild Shape as this doesn't override any other choices as far as I know. Maybe even deplete their firebreath ability in addition to wildshape to transform into a dragon. Since this is an additional feature to give to this class it doesn't feel wrong to be conservative and apply a few more restrictions that necessary than to allow something you might regret later on. A more experience DM might be able to evaluate the balance better but at least with this you'd let the player play out they fanatasy if they're willing to pay the cost of building towards the concept. Yes I know that the fact that flying speed would disquality most dragons early, but you might just disable swimming and flying speed till you actually unlock it in the druid class.
@sevret313 My problem is not eith experienced players, but the advice given by them to do what's cool with no qualifications. As you will have new players mad at core rules before they have even played a session and be arguing with the dm over everything they feel is not fun or hom brews they made with little regard for balancing or even usefulness. If you have been playing dnd for 10 years with other experienced players, the mindset you have will be vastly different then a new group starting because you are placing a heavy burden on a new DM. Learn the base game first before you try changing everything mid session because of the rule of cool.
I use inspiration for that. If you have a cool idea that the game rules don't really account for or are kinda grey about, burn inspiration and make the play. I like rewarding my players for good RP, so having a really meaningful moment for a character is rewarded by doing something really cool in combat.
I am a beginning level learning DM and if a player of mine gives me an epic moment that is not within the rules, I would bend it because the main reason to play is to have fun. Also, they would need to role a persuasion check on me to convince me lol. But fun before everything else
My DM when I said I wanted to play a Drow character was like… “Just so you know I don’t do sunlight sensitivity, I think it’s stupid” and I was low-key happy, I didn’t wanna play the entire game with disadvantage on everything
That's cool. I have a Kobold character, but for backstory reasons she spends her time almost exclusively on the surface, so one time I asked if I could ditch the sunlight sensitivity for her and got the ok to do so! Very nice not to have to worry about asking what the weather was.
Agree. I wanna play my lizardman without being completley dumb and just wanna eat with no futher depth. Thats why racial traits are often more marked as "cultural traits" rather then hard rules in my games
The one thing I always point out to rules lawyers is that the first edition of D&D says at the very start that the rules are only meant for basic structure and you are meant to use them or add your own as you see fit. The point of D&D is to experience a story and have fun, players and DM included.
5e also says something similar at the start of the PHB and the DMG. Rules lawyers truly like to pretend that they're the only ones able to read and retain information when they clearly show the opposite is true.
I mean, it's also worth remembering that everyone has their own tolerance for things. Some people really enjoy the game aspect and outright ignoring the rules can make the sessions feel unstructured and arbitrary.
@@piranhaplantXfundamentally 99% of issues people have could just be solved with proper communication. In this case, if you don't like flexible interpretation of the rules or homebrew, say that during session 0, or just talk to your DM between sessions. (If they are worthy of being a DM they will atleast acknowledge your concerns and try to find a solution with you) If you are _arguing_ with your DM mid session then the likes of communication have broken and nobody is having fun. This is different from being helpful and finding information thats requested, or reminding people about something like active buffs or taking/recieving an opportunity attack. And most importantly, don't argue on a ruling during a session, the DM is the referee and all you are doing is stopping play and making everyone else uncomfortable or annoyed. (They may even have a plan they haven't told you about)
There's been a plethora of moments which weren't possible according to the rule- but it was just so awesome. They were in-character, being so inventive, they deserve it
A great example of a rule that should have been broken but surprisingly never was was Frumpkin not getting dark vision... Cat like vision was literally used in the description of dark vision but the rules also said cats don't have it. 5e really goes out of it's way to make companion animals useless. I know it's a really hard line to walk between useless and game breaking but... It is mildly frustrating.. a cat not seeing in the dang dark. Come on son.
I agree with one condition, note when you do something like that so you can be consistent. That way the player that remembers you did that is rewarded later when they find another way to use that ruling to their advantage.
also more importantly, remember that any time a GM break a rule for a player, the GM is allowed to also break it for the NPCs. so stating "if I allow you to do it, I'll be allowed to do it to you later" to make sure they REALLY want to do it is a good idea. that is great because that way you know if they really want to do it because it makes sense for them, or just because they are frustrated and want to break a rule to solve their problem.
This is a bad approach overall, they're already allowed to on dnd5e, for the same reasons they're allowed to allow the players to break the rules Additionally, some things are more painful as a player than as a gm, the gm gets to play the world and all the characters in it, except the party members, and sometimes a couple pseudo-PC companions, but each player has at most 2, maybe in niche scenerios 3 entities they are playing as, and even 2 for 1 player is rare as heck Paralysis is far less painful when it's used on a random mook and when you're still controlling 5 other characters, all able to free that 1 randok mook by breaking concentration Being banished and basically dead then and there, that's far less devastating for an NPC than a player for pretty similar reasons
The way I see it, the rules are more for combat encounters and keeping things...somewhat under control. They give a framework to work within, but they shouldnt be so restrictive that they stop fun.
Love his rule on potions, my dm does a thing where you roll healing if you use a potion as a bonus action, but if you use a full action it automatically gives max healing
That's grand, essentially if you use the potion as a bonus action you're quickly consuming it, so there is a chance you fail to use all of it in that moment (like spilling some in the act of using it) Whereas with more time one could make sure they fully embibe/apply the potion, thus guaranteeing full effects I think this also mixes well with various potion-use concepts, such as needing to pour the potion over the wound, or needing to inhale it, or other more magical means of use.
The best example of this I find is throwing weapons, generally you can only draw one weapon a turn, which means that you're kinda screwed one you hit level 5 because you're dagger-throwing fighter can throw two or three knives a turn, but can only grab one a turn out of his belt. The rule just poses as an arbitary blockade that prevents a fun, flavourful character of a ranged fighter hurling daggers or shuriken rather than just taking a bow, so ignore it.
The DM/GM's most important job is knowing when to roll some dice behind the screen, make a face, and tell the player they just barely succeeded/failed, without even bothering to count the results, because it's what's best for the players and the story.
Everything in moderation. Including moderation. If I were to try to sum up how I strive to live my life, I'd say that quote is the closest to summing it up that I can think of.
I think it doesn't really applies for real life, that's pretty much a rule for games. Although the fact I'm on the receiving end of people deciding rules/boundaries are impeding their fun so time to ignore them, so maybe I'm not seeing the fun of deciding this rule is stopping from having fun so time get around it
I don't think this applies my dude. "Red lights are rules, but it's more fun to ignore them." See how this doesn't translate very well. Not being a real life murder hobo is definitely one rule I don't want to hear our government say "I'll allow it" to.
@@alancode2147I mean, running a red light would certainly be more thrilling. Not advisable in the least, but I imagine it could be more interesting than running a green light.
The PHB for dnd specifically states to not use it perfectly, you should use it as a building block for sure, but don’t make the game about winning or losing. Everyone should be having fun, nobody wants to feel cheated because a rule says “well it doesn’t work that way because …”. I want to do cool shit, and sometimes even small moments get ruined by weird obscure rules that make it super lame to play and that makes people quit
@@brendanhewerWe get it. You like to play closer to the rules. That is absolutely fine and you are absolutely in your right to play the game you want to play. Just like people who do not want to stick as close to the rule set are also in their right to play the way it is fun for them. Games have been played this way for hundreds of years. It’s no different than every family having different house rules for Monopoly or Clue or Scrabble.
The PHB and DMG both explicitly say that the rules are guidelines. If a rule doesn't make sense for your game or your table just doesn't like it, don't use it.
If my players want to do something and find a way to do it that makes sense in the timezone and lore of the world, they can do it. Does it fuck up a week of planning? Doesnt matter. Its their story, im just telling it. Alot of DMs need to lose the ego before they lose their players
People forget that on like the first page of the DMG it says that the rules are all suggestions and the final judgement is always on the DM. The most important thing is consistancy otherwise it feels like cheating or unfair punishment to the player
In my campaigns we always have two sets of rules we either do rules for long term Or in my one shots we do "rule of cool" where impracticality is thrown aside because it's four people in a room just trying to unwind from a hard week, we want to have fun not be balanced
This is very much how I try and DM. The rules are guidelines but if they’re too restrictive I’ll bend the rules as far as I can. The apex of that are the characters in my world who legitimately BREAK the rules of 5e because of their divine power and if they can do it, the players should be allowed to as well.
Imagine being at a (digital) table where the DM googles literally every rule and if they're not happy what google says, they come up with their own interpretation, which is usually specifically designed to fuck with the player for the DM's own enjoyment. Of course this is a hypothetical situation that wasn't my existence 4 nights a week for almost two years.
@@floccinaucinihilipilificat6749 It was an incredibly toxic situation that I'm kind of ashamed to have been a part of. The DM was player-turned-DM after the original DM ghosted us. At first, he was DMing for us for free, but then tried to turn it into a business, wanting to DM literally like 10 paid games a week. I was at the height of my D&D obsession, so every time the DM announced he was starting a new campaign, a lot of us just immediately signed up, paying $15 each for three campaigns, so each person was paying $45 a week. The DM's primary storytelling medium was bullying and trauma. He was the definition of adversarial in his DMing and consistently made his decisions based off of external information, and even went as far as to almost intentionally kill a brand new player's character because they dared to bring Protection from Evil and Good on their paladin to a Strahd campaign. He devised a "Soul Item" system that was literally game-breaking in every imaginable way. These items were sentient and intended to drive character development. My cleric was a fisherman by trade, so naturally, the DM thought it appropriate to give this INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT ITEM the voice and personality of the "Nice day for fishin, innit?" guy from Viva La Dirt League. My warlock used a homebrewed Pact of the Raven Queen subclass which had a feature that gave me a raven familiar. The raven was intended to be serve as an altruistic guide for my character. Nope. Instead, the DM never missed an opportunity to have the raven call my character an asshole and otherwise be completely dismissive and unhelpful. After a while of consistent in-session bullying, you start to realize that ... maybe it's pointed and intentional.
VERY important for a DM. Unimportant for a GM. The rest of us just play better systems that let you do that cool thing. Or gives you a guide on how you can make the cool thing into a balanced house rule that you can keep consistant. because the worst thing about rule bending is when it leaves others players thinking "Wait I didn't get that option when I was doing that." which is why the most important thing, that keeps players having fun, is to play something better than DnD.
Yeah, that's part of it, pf1e is great in that it is a mostly consistent, thorough simulationist system, it gives you the tools to represent whatever you want, including what's required to make that happen, positive and negative consequences This lets everyone be on the same page on what is and isn't possible in this world, at least mostly, and that gives everyone at the table more freedom, because you don't need to phrase every action as a request, you just do it, and that lets you pull out creative solutions to problems, but creative solutions within the bounds of what's already allowed. The main place you need to be phrasing your decisions as a request is with item crafting and acquisition, and chargen, that's really it, and that makes sense, chargen includes factors the system itself literally cannot account for without using exclusively premades, your backstory, while you can systemize some elements, you're just playing the game from birth if it covers everything, and the build sometimes just doesn't mesh with the party or the backstory you've given, the build might make sense to exist in the world, but not in this story in this world
Rules so that you can make a ruling is my overall stance, you can't know the rules if no rules exist, and you need to know the rules before you can break them effectively Additionally, OSR systems are useless, half of them are equivilant to base d20 system at best in how much they actually give you to work with, followed by some scenerio examples, which is useless, the existance of the rules doesn't restrict you, the rules are just the starting point so everyone is on the same page before they sit down at the table to play, so they all know what they're agreeing to, so when the gm or another player is stepping out of bounds, and it hasn't been put forth that we're fine with that deviation to the rules, that can be disputed, and if they're doing something we all agreed to already, you can't try and say no without immediately getting called out for going back on your word OSR takes heavy inspiration from gary gygax himself, the guy who's strict on the rules and how the players are there to play along with whatever the gm wants to do, and they should be happy with anything and everything the gm says, even when that means that elves are incapable of being barbarians or even just fighters, or that alignment is a language, and unless you're evil, you cannot understand evil people unless they choose to speak normal, and you cannot even decipher it through study without becoming evil
I know of and have seen too many DMs who would froth at the mouth at this statement while screaming "No!!! ThE rUlEs MuSt Be FoLlOwEd No MaTtEr WhAt!!!"
Number 1 BEST advice for DMing. Your job as a DM isn't to enforce the rules on your players. It's to help everyone at the table have a good time. If that means you have to fudge or throw out some rule to allow a great moment to happen where everyone is aghast and just loves it! DO IT! But recognize when that moment comes and don't just do it to do it unless you and your players agree on homebrewing rules.
depends on the rule, some rules are meant to keep the way they are for balancing purposes but if its a stupid problem/silly rule then its perfectly acceptable for the DM to homebrew a solution
So true! This is the Nr.1 Rule for any TTRPG and the only one that should NOT be broken: Follow the rules as long as they make sense and don‘t prevent players (or GMs) from having fun. I‘ve bent or broken many a rule in my time GMing because I wanted to tell a compelling story rather than wag my finger at players telling them that their creative thinking doesn‘t go with the rules. Thankfully all the DMs/GMs/Storytellers I‘ve ever played with have had the same philosophy.
It makes me happy to see him both acknowledge that he had a period of being harder on the rules and that he realised and stopped doing that. I loved the chill vibes in the beginning of CR. (Just wanted to add since I know this could be interpreted as me no longer watching because I disapproved of said hardassery - that's not the case. He was never *that* strict. ^^ I couldn't handle the heavier "emphasis"/incorporation of character (NPC and PC) deaths so I had to stop for my shaky mental health.)
And you know what? He gets it right! One example I think of him improving on the rules is making potions a bonus action to drink. Sure its not logical (uncorking & drinking something irl takes way more effort than swinging a sword twice), but its more fun! And it quickens the pace of combat, allowing more interesting things than having a player basically having to swallow their turn. At my table & a friends table I play at we've been experimenting with the initiative system, and have each in turn found ways to make combat both faster & encourage more tactical gameplay, just by abandoning old notions of how turn based combat should work. Seriously guys, if something doesn't work for you & your players, absolutely be willing to change it!
This is the number one thing I've always used to guide my DMing. I don't watch crit role but it's cool that Matt and I have a similar stance on "if a rule gets in the way of fun, then it's not worth holding onto (at least in the moment)"
I’m not typically someone who allows a bunch of crazy homebrew stuff in my game, but I stand by bending the rules for my players when it makes sense. My whole “job” as a DM is to create an experience for my players- a fun one. I pour my entire soul into my campaigns, down to the tiniest little details that often never even get explored. I do it out of love for the game and love for my players. We’re all at the table to have fun! And while rules are definitely necessary sometimes, it’s good to know when to let them go a little bit.
For example: letting spellcasters use the "Two weapon fighting" bonus action to cast a centrip after casting a spell like fireball. I do this to keep my party's spellcasters up to speed with the martial classes.
This is a perfect example of when you shouldn't break the rules. If a spellcaster wants to cast a spell and a cantrip then they have the quicken metamagic. If spellcasters is falling behind your martial then it's because you've done something wrong and buffed your martials accidentally.
@@sevret313 or the casters are heavily kneecapping themselves somehow If this was pathfinder, I'd understand, martials are just more powerful in pf2e, and in pf1e, martials are at worst, slightly behind, but with dnd5e? Casters are just more powerful usually, purely due to cantrip scaling being more than enough to keep up with most ranged martials Without cantrips, sure, you can very easily get a pretty balanced setup when using the rests to resource expending encounters guideline properly, because then the martials are still able to do the majority of their things, even when running on empty, but casters can't and actually need to conserve their abilities All of this as someone who mains casters in both pf1e (my favorite ttrpg system) and dnd5e, damaging cantrips need nerfed in dnd5e, and people need to force me to be careful about how many spells I use. Dnd5e is a resource management game, simple as that, it's barely even a collaborative storytelling system, because the rules don't help with that much at all, and the rules are the entirety of the system, everything else is the campaign or the people at the table. The main mechanical divide between casters and martials is how strict their resource management is, martials just have health as their main limiter for how long they can keep going, but casters need their spell slots to do anything on the same level as the martials, but can do more powerful things when they're at full power, sure, a caster can craft better than any mundane crafter, but they need their slots for that, sure, they may be able to conjure a perfect shelter whenever, but they... wait, they have ritual casting for tiny hut, and that's another issue, ritual casting, it's neat, and makes some sense in some cases, but it needs to be more restricted to keep this divide as well
I've not encountered any DMs who are sticklers for rules EXCEPT when it's obvious a player is taking the piss for their own personal gain. Oddly enough, it's often those same piss-takers who'll get shitty with a DM for being flexible for others who aren't taking the piss, but are asking if it's possible to do something fun. I think it's because those players are purely motivated by selfishness, and can't imagine anyone else not being equally selfish.
He's almost right - and here's the real secret, for free. The rules BELONG to you and your group. Change them whenever and however you want to. The game is yours. Rules designers are just people, they don't know your table better than you. No company or corporation can ever own D&D, it's always been ours.
Just since a lot of people are wondering-this video is slightly sped up (4%) because UA-cam Shorts have to be 60 seconds or less. The regular speed video is also on our channel posted as a normal UA-cam video if you want to watch it, I just also wanted to share Matt’s advice with the YT Shorts Audience. Full video here: ua-cam.com/video/rZh8Lfh_Ojc/v-deo.htmlsi=vx3utIgNfqFfIz_C
Matt sounds a touch chipmunky but not too bad. I didn't notice till near the end.
Oh thank you yes that helps
I was wondering why he sounded higher (pitched) than normal
I was gonna say there's no way that's normal voice right???? Here I was suddenly wondering if he was doing a DM voice all this time
After hearing Matt's voice for over 1000 hours I immediately noticed something was off lol
"know the rules like a master, so you can break them like an artist."
I really like that, it rolls off the tongue
@@defiledsoul1658 Wow, apparently there's a reason for that, it's a quote from Picasso!
@@KingTaltia damn, thats neat if only OP credited his quotes lmao
@@defiledsoul1658probably didnt know it off the top of their head
This is actually a very good quote, most of the once I see seem kinda like just basic shit like "do good dont do bad", which this still is, but it has competence
I love Brennan’s example. If Sam told Frodo “I can’t carry the ring, but I can carry you!” And the DM said to make a strength check, that would kind of dilute the experience.
Id say the strength check would determine how you carry em. Like nat 20, piggy back ride..5, you draggin em and go a bit slower
@@SomeRandoooo Fair.
Failing checks are not instant automatic fails. DM may choose to allow it but add a negative caveat
For example, your rogue wants to pick a lock. You know there's no way in hell they'll fail to open it, so if they roll low, you may go "You open up the door, but the clatter seemed to wake up the guard", instead of a bland "you couldn't do it"
“Sam adds Frodo to his inventory. Sam is over encumbered.”
There are cool moments tou just want the player to succeed, but there should be a possibility of failure or only a partial success. If I always succeed becuase it is "cool", it dilutes the experience when you actually do succeed. You rolled a 19, but I would.have just allowed an auto success if you had done something crazy.
"I'll allow it", is prolly the most pro-fun thing I regularly hear from Matt in a game on a regular basis.
when he kind of lifts his head and the rest of the cast is giggling like they just got away with murder lol
And often it's "Well, you can certainly try". Like ok it's unorthodox, but let them explain and roll for it, if it's logical.
Except he often says it for things that are RAW and on multiple occasions has denied something allowed by the rules because he wasn't 100% on the rule. I feel like Mercer is one of the most by the book DMs I've seen in a real play game and the times where he says "sorry" with that cheeky grimace when a player tries to bend their mechanics just a little bit has turned me away from CR tbh. Sometimes it feels like he's gatekeeping fun until it's an idea he thinks is good instead of letting his players run the show. Matt is exemplary at many things as a dm but improvising and allowing his players to "bend the rules" is not one of them. All imo tho obv
@@People0rder0urPattis imagine saying that Matt Mercer is not good at improvising 😂😂😂
@@People0rder0urPattiswhat a way to tell us how clueless you actually are
I always tell my players, "Tell me why it should work," and they actually always give me an in-universe explanation, and I tell them what to roll to make it work. I even let other players roll to help them. My key is, I always have them describe why it should work like that, and we have not yet had to break a rule intentionally, just bend them a lot.
so good
It is a very good way to make the game move with a good flow and make it fun for everybody.
I think the most common case with this in my games are with skill checks. I play a game that has maaaany skills (almost 30), so although this makes them more specific, it creates more overlap in the mind of players. So it is always cool to see them getting creative to justify how that skill would work for that specific case if they did this or that, or if they combine it with an item or a pet ability etc.
I do the same, but my catchphrase has become "pitch it to me"
That's RAW, you're not supposed to be allowed to roll until you explain exactly what you're doing, this is part of the issue with charisma checks oftentimes, you need to make the argument, and the roll is any unseen circumstances that might effect it, with 10 heing flat neutral, when no factors are effecting it one way or the other, and your modifier is how well you can do it relative to that flat 10
Those unforeseen or uncontrollable factors may by the minutiae of how tired you are, or the person you're talking to might just be really bored, your knife might have dulled a bit more than you thought since the last sharpening, or what have you, that's what the roll represents, not whether it's possible or not
Whether it's possible or not ultimately comes down to whether the gm is convinced it's possible in their story, and that's it in dnd5e, if this were pf1e, you could oftentimes go into the specifics and make an argument to say this is or isn't possible based on the rules, because pf1e is a good simulationist system, but dnd5e is one of the worst simulationist systems out there, best played like a narrative system instead, heck, inspiration is a meta currency, the defining factor of those systems, tho it's not great as one of those either, being in an awkward middleground, where the control is largely taken away from the players and given to the gm, but without the tools to gamify the narrative in its place, but that same setup means it looks very approachable, and can easily be misunderstood to be something completely different than what it is, giving it very broad appeal
This reminds me of Pirates of the Caribbean:
*Barbossa:* The Code isn't rigid rules, they're more like guidelines anyway.
This is a great way to explain it to people 😂
lol, that is literally the very first rule in the 1e of DnD
It’s literally just a game of pretend, the rules are there to make it so you can’t have the “everything proof shield” that ruins the fun for everyone but that one kid
The PHB and DMG both say that exact thing. The rules are suggestions.
@@woodlefoof2even 5th edition states that in the dungeon master guide
That's exactly what it is too!
"I'll allow it" is always something I say while giggling maniacally at what the player wants to do. How could you say no to that much fun?
I've seen this in Brennan's DMing style. He let a lot of "you know what ? I'll allow it, it looks fun" stuff, and I actually hope that it will help me be like this with my players
Murph also, the “rule of cool”
I mean then just join an improv group. No need to play a game iwth rules in the first place.
@@squattingheads There is because even very malleable rules still give some structure and tension.
Maybe improv with dice randomized moments and suggested lines? Then why not to play DnD? :-D
the was a moment in Dungeons & Drag Queens where Bob wanted to use their Shield spell to protect another character, and Breen started with like 'Sorry that's not how it...' and quickly was like "No, you know what? Fuck it, I don't want that rule to be true right now." and allowed an arcana check to modify their spell.
@@squattingheadsI mean then just play baldurs gate 3, why let players any human leeway at all, have a computer do the rules? Brennan also disallows stuff as well.
This is why the GM must be a person. An automated system has no ability to allow rules to be bent, broken or even ignored. Playing ( and running the game) is a social event, where everyone interacts and progress the story OR even ignore the story and wander off to make a new story.
This is a very short-sighted take, honestly. It's already possible for an automated system to break rules. You can talk to an AI bot right now, create a game, lay down some rules and tell it to bend or break them when it seems like it might be more entertaining, and it will. The systems aren't perfect, but they're absolutely in place and tech advances quickly.
The reason people are quick to assume this isn't possible is because they believe it requires a machine to break its programming, but this isn't the case. The trick is merely to emulate human behaviour. We're already seeing this in its most basic form in chess bots that are intentionally coded not to play optimally, and in games with AI storytellers overseeing the narrative, such as RimWorld. From their perspective, rules technically aren't being broken, but from our point of view it's pretty convincing.
@Squant A chess bot playing non optimally is surely quite simple from a rules perspective. They already have the ability to identify moves and rank them for which is the best move, it's then just a case of choosing a less optimal move down the list, assuming they already have an ordered list of moves in any situation.
This is different entirely to telling an AI to bend a rule when it makes it fun. How does an AI know what is fun?
@@dahui58Same as any other AI. You show them what a fun game looks like and they'll try to learn from it.
@@mdrlolcat how do you show an AI how a game is fun. There's lots of types of fun and people enjoy different things. It would have to be trained to play the game and also read the code and know how to match the gameplay to the code. Doesn't sound simple at all to me. This would also vary wildly depending on the control scheme and genre of the game. I think we're not close to this type of technology for games in general
Video games.
Home brewing and changing rules to make the game fun is the best way to play dnd
Additionally, as a player,
I feel like it kind of also falls on us to learn the rules in terms of,
How we can best utilize them to our advantage,
Possibly to the point of being able to pull up some pretty silly stunts.
In this way we can help create fun for ourselves and each other,
Manipulate the rules to our advantage so that the DM doesn't feel too conflicted,
And possibly encourage them to think outside the box a little bit.
It's the way dnd is intend to be played since it's inception
People would write Gary Gygax a particular situation and he would ask what they did
I had the honor of getting to play once in an adventure Gary ran and the guy was a very old school, off the cuff DM. The rules are guidelines not set in stone
This is why I'm always too scared to join my first game. Worried I'd be so green I'd ruin the experience for everyone else.
Nice to know some DMs are more lenient about the rules.
I've only ever home-brewed, and my own game I completely scrapped the base magic rules because to me they made no sense, and built a different system that is easier for me as a newer DM to manage and my players enjoy more
To quote Gary Gygax, “It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules which is important."
To quote this single sentence from the AD&D DMG Afterword - without mentioning the rest of the paragraph - would be to rob Gygax’s statement of its context:
“As you HEW THE LINE with respect to CONFORMITY to major systems and UNIFORMITY of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS. Within the broad parameters given in the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons volumes, you are creator and final arbiter.
By ordering things as they should be, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons as it was meant to be.“
Conclusions:
1) This sounds more like a reference to the final say DMs have in the interpretation of the rules, which discretion is to be exercised in “the spirit of the game.” It is *not* a suggestion that DMs should tinker with an intricate and interdependent system like AD&D unless they knew the rules inside out - and even then, it should never be done for the sake of one player’s short-term enjoyment (“game (i.e. rules) first, campaign next, participants thereafter”).
2) “Fun” (which no “Rule 0” advocate defines anyway) is not mentioned anywhere, whereas much greater priority is conferred on the overall harmony of the game and its rules. Even the campaign as a whole is said to take precedence over individual player desires - which are often preoccupied with the sort of rapid PC advancement that harms campaigns.
3) It therefore seems that what Gygax refers to as “the spirit of the game” is not “Disregard and bend the rules if they get in the way of player fun” at all, but constitutes in his intention for writing a particular rule (like the Founding Fathers with the Constitution).
4) From this emerges the prescription of an obligation upon DMs to master the game’s rules and impose them upon the campaign and its players with carefully applied discretion in their interpretation. The handwaving of rules common to the average DM may seem like fun-loving, anything-goes self-confidence, but in truth it is lazy: the fact of the matter is that it is *hard* to truly master a game like D&D.
People who use the “spirit over letter” quote are advised to read the introduction to the AD&D DMG, which leaves no doubt as to what intentions Gygax had had for AD&D.
Always at least one guy who thinks so shallowly about fun at the table..
FYI even gygax liked his table to have fun
@@maximumoverdrive7554 i didn't even read that reply when it happens. Don't have the energy for UA-cam bile
@Darksnowman13 I mean in fairness he's right. Gary was not a big proponent of the "rules are more guidelines" style of DMing, and the original quote is absolutely taken out of context
@@brendanhewervery good write up
"If you wanna be really good at music, you should follow the rules, because it sounds good. But if you wanna be extremely good at music, then you break the rules and it still sounds good."
Same with fighting (hands up, foot work, ect), you want to learn the rules and master them, but sometimes you gotta break those rules for your advantage. Sometimes, putting the hands down and letting them throw the punch gives you a chance to slip for that hook to the head or body.
Will Wood is an excellent example of breaking the rules and making excellent music. He can sing and play the piano at insanely fast rates (and he can’t even read music)
I love that you brought him up as an example actually, one of my closest friends, DM, and fellow player in another campaign is a massive will wood fan, she introduced me to him and his style of "bashing the keys and screaming" as she put it just fits perfect for the both of us being long time punk and metal heads. I recently finished my first year in college and I studied music as a minor, jazz particularly, because I am heavily influenced by the jazz philosophy on everything whether its jazz, fusion, metal, prog, rock, blues, edm, hip hop, punk, folk, trap, indie, etc. These are all huge influences I want to blend in the future and jazz was the logical focal point to everything I value in music. I studied it for a year, got to know a lot of great information, and I will never do it again. Its a level of surgical, a level of science in music theory, and I think while its study can breed truly incredible musicians, its not for everyone and its not for me. You get a firm grasp on the on the mechanics of singing, playing, producing, you get solid on techniques, and you get a basic grasp on what theory is, from there, the stars themselves are yours to take. @@norsethenomad5978
Perfectly said. A lot of people nowadays say "you dont need to learn music theory, that old crap is not needed anymore". They miss the entire point. You need to know the rules before you can break them and twist them to your advantage.
@@J.R.Swish1 100%
You have to know how to sound good first. Then you can sound good in unique ways after that, by possibly breaking some rules. That's when you become MORE than just good.
This is why he's the best DM ever. He makes it fun for both the people who are veterans at DND as well as those who aren't quite sure of how it works. Love you, Matt
A great example of this (spoilers for campaign 2) was Yasha's journey to being able to weild the dawnbreaker. Originally only being able to be used by paladins, Matt and Ashely sought to make it actually work through role-playing and various sequences for yasha to become a champion/paladin for her God. That is the kind of DM I strive to be one day
Holy Avenger
I strive to have friends that love dnd someday ;-;
@@Frederic_104I strive to have friends someday ;-;
Great example. I think the part that a lot of people try to gloss over is that both the DM *and* Player put in the work towards making that rules allowance "work" in the context of their campaign. I see far too many players crying "bad DM" because the DM asked them to meet them halfway.
I mean, just axe rules that sound dumb. Its actually one of the easiest things a DM can do for his table.
The most important thing is to understand the spirit of the rules. As long as you know what the rule is there for then you can bend or break it to keep the fun rolling
Yeah, like how a lot of magic items have extremely stupid stipulations, like. "You can't tell this is cursed because Identify doesn't detect curses." or "Dust of Sneezing and Choking, which can kill you if you don't succeed the save, is completely indistinguishable from Dust of Disappearance, and even outright lies to an Identify spell." The spirit of the rule is, in essence, "screw you for playing this game, you suck", so it's important to always break it.
I love how that’s his biggest rule. He’s playing rule maker for his friends not the whole world. He can say yes to whatever he wants because he wants his friends to have fun. I love how he’s not the rules lawyer he’s the rule controller/keeper. So if he feels the rules need to be bent or twisted they can be.
I’d say he’s like a judge in court. XD
Rules apply to everyone, but sometimes its okay to bend them. I dont think most judges will send a first time offender to prison or jail over a candy bar, they might be able to legally but it helps no one, a bit of community service, a fine, or something might do just fine, as well as asking a persons intent logic and reasoning can sometimes matter.
When I'm explaining how to GM to newbies I always say that your most important role as a GM is as a Referee. You have to know the rules and decide when, where and how to beat apply them to keep the game flowing, to service the story, and enhance the fun of the table.
This is why I think its important to know the rules well, because once you know them you can change them to fit your table better.
It's like learning math. You learn the rules so you understand how to properly break them.
@@MagiofAsuraI do believe math is the single worst field you could have used as an example. If you can break the rules of math, then you either learned math wrong, or have discovered an error that changes the entire landscape of mathematics as we know it.
You do not break the rules of math.
Gotta know the rules to know the best way to break them.
@@Glmorrs1 exactly.
"Dont like jumping rules?" Well first you should probably learn jumping rules.
@@thatguythere6161Math is actually a pretty good example because every rule in the field of mathematics has an exception of sorts that can be exploited when needed sometimes.
"Follow the rules until they're not fun and then break them."
Only in D&D is this acceptable advice.
That also applies to artistic expression. You learn rules so you can break them to make something interesting
And drugs.
More specifically 5e because that game has "rules" instead of rules lmao
Eh, life is about having fun. I could see this applying elsewhere.
@@UserofUA-camMobileThe subjective part of fun makes it a bit problematic elsewhere
Serial killers have fun doing their thing, but they probably shouldn't lol
Rule number 1 of any creative endeavor: Know the rules so you can know how and when to break the rules.
Also good advice for life in general. That and only break one law at a time.
@doublewhopper67 Rule: one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity.
Now, let's use this definition in the context of creating art. In the frame of reference of Painting, which is a very legitimate form of art. You have plenty of rules rules which are created not by the arbitrary human psyche but by nature, itself. How light works, for example. The way it reflects off of an apple is very different from the way it reflects off of a sphere of metal, and depending on how many light sources there are, it completely changes how it looks. In order to draw or paint a subject like that, you have to understand fundamentally how light works. Then, after years of learning how light works, you can start to bend the rules within your paintings because you understand the nature of light fundamentally, which is not a set of norms but rules. In order for J.M.V. Turner to paint Regulus, he would have needed to have a deep understanding of how light functions in order to capture the form of intensity that he desired for his painting. In fact, more fundamentally, if he didn't know the rule, that's squares and rectangles are 4 lines conjoined at a 90° angle he wouldn't have been enabled to paint the buildings in Regulas. Now, let's look at Picasso. In order for him to have made his paintings, he would have too understand the shapes of what he was making, let's say a Human, he would have to understand the general geometry of a human being in order to contort it in a way that invoked emotion while still looking human. Well, each human is beautifully unique. They still have a general geometry that makes them human.
So now there are no norms, there are rules. They exist because they create a level of coherency, and if treated as norms, then you can go willy-nilly with anything, just make modern art. Make some modern art so that way, billionaires can not pay their taxes, so that way criminals can get away with laundering money, all while you enjoy the same exact movie Marvel has made after Endgame because they follow a norm, not the rules of making a good film 😉.
Seems like you don't have a player who's fun is to find every loosely worded rule or class features that can break your game.
You made cool magic items? The Artificer scoffs, saying at Lv:6 he can make even more broken stuff for free.
@OrangeDragon04 This short and comment is very much in the context of story craft and world building as an art form. Read the room.
Also, I have had those players. Someone is able to boost their AC to 31? Have them roll saves every once in a while. Is someone using the combo of pole arm master and sentinel? Pelt them with arrows. They have both? An encounter where a mage dominates them against their party will be terrifying fun that your group surely will remember.
These are adventurers. By level 3, they'll be the talk of the local neighborhood at least. Someone will surely then know not to get close to the guy with the pole arm, and if they do let them have it, they earned it.
You sound like the person who places all their combat encounters and a flat 90×90 plane and then complains that 5e combat is boring and dull. Sure, 3 giant wolf spiders on a field is mellow dramatic, but put that battle on a cliff side that a lower level party is climbing up, and oh boy, will the group be sweating.
Also, not every encounter has to have counters to your party members, just enough to keep them on their toes. Let them have those strengths that can shine through every once in a while.
If I hear one more person complain that 5e combat is too easy or boring when they don't even make a Dragon's lair lethal independent of the Dragon being there then I'll smack them with a 2e book, so that way they can read that designing encounters that way is what you are supposed to do.
@@Arius_Astronomy Gods no, 5e's combat is great. I do place obstacles on the map, hight differences, traps or pools of water. The thing is, I hardly ever get to do combat that is planned. Or show any world building or main story quests I've written.
Usually the party fights guards, because 2 dudes took the "you can do whatever you want" aspect too literally and tried to threaten a shopkeeper with a weapon. Or straight up kill him. And now the story can't happen.
Sure, it's not all bad, I have 2 maybe 3 players who do care about the world building. I solved the murder hobo problem by splitting the party into two groups. Good and evil, which sorta worked, but it is a double edged sword. It creates places and characters who have plot Armor, because a player meets them later in the timeline of the other group's story. So there's the middle fingers pointed at me for making an unkillable NPC that runs as soon as any form of combat occurs, cannot be killed by stealth or has an item which he or she gives to the other group later in the timeline.
Because of the delay, just last week we managed to get to story points heavily tied to the PC's backstories. Well those who do have one that doesn't change every session to suit the need. (The story beat was written almost a year ago and could've happened maybe around the start of April)
What should I do in this situation? The murder hobos do a lot of damage by slowing things down, but they also have their bright moments, like the time they spent an entire session talking to a foreign shopkeeper. Or the time they made a living tavern owner and a confused ghost tied to an old sword into great friends.
Should I grid my teeth and hope it will get better or a more radical solution like making consequences more harsh than just an occasional bounty hunter, town guard or a curse?
Oh and I must humbly protest. What the players can or cannot do using class abilities can harm story writing very much.
For example if a blacksmith takes months to create a mighty sword that will later be blessed by clerics. It loses all it's wow effect and rarity if an artificer can spend some gold, wave his hand and make it in a long rest.
I don't mind combos made for combat, but world building breakers, I do mind very much, sadly there's not much I can do without being an Evil DM who'd restrict his players too much.
My favorite time i broke the rules for my players is allowing a construct tame a mimic by feeding it and nat 20 am animal handling check. I was going to make the mimic attack them but i couldnt say no after the 20. The mimic's name is Hazel, she is a ring the construct wears and they are the best of friends
❤
I DM'd a game where the newly formed low level party were facing a Slaadpole (basically from what I read about it, a big unformed temporal frog/tadpole thing?)
The slaadpole pole would vanish/teleport short distances while it thrashed about.
We had an Eladrin in the party that could Fey Step and wanted to attack the Slaadpole in the fey dimension as it vanished.
I thought this was a badass idea and whether or not that would work in the rules I wasn't about to start reading up on where do slaadpoles "go" when they teleport.
The eladrin roled high enough on their checks and timed the attacks to slice through as the enemy shifted past as an attack of opportunity.
Everyone was very impressed it worked and it stopped the Slaadpole shifting for a few turns to make the battle easier.
Cool>Rule always haha
Liam’s cat not having night vision
There's a biggun
I know it's so stupid, but it will still pop into my head sometimes that frumpkin didn't have night vision lol!
That made sense though. As a wizard it's not like you are warping into your familiar's body and obtaining their attributes or stat block skills, you're basically just creating a blind spot in their minds that replaces all of those natural abilities with what YOU as the wizard are capable of doing. Hence why Liam from a game play perspective could direct and give Frumpkin orders but not be allowed to control him. It's not possession, it's clairvoyance essentially.
Also cat stat block doesnt have night vision. I get how that can be an easy call by the DM to just give dark vision to a cat but it DOES seem valid to rule it out for the case of how a wizard familiar works.
@@ryanbontrager5700Cats not having night vision is probably the dumbest, simplest and one of the most annoying mistakes in 5e because it comes up quite frequently (familiar and wild shape for example) and everyone assumes that they can see at night because most people have real life experience with them and then are surprised when the game tells them they don't have access to it.
Especially when animals like badgers have it who have worse sight, not just at night (their sense of smell is better tho).
That mentality also applies to thinking before employing house rules when starting the campaign. Was part of a 5E campaign with a DM that exclusively ran Pathfinder prior. So he brought over Pathfinder's Crit Confirm rule into 5E without bringing any of the other systems that boosted how strong crits were (i.e. the built-in crit modifiers for weapons) so it just sapped all the joy out of rolling a nat 20 in combat by the end of even just the first session. It was addressed as an issue, but they refused to budge on the matter. Campaign fell apart two sessions later.
"Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em."
-Thief of Time, by Terry Pratchett.
Ooooh, this explains a lot. There definitely have been moments in CR where I though "hm, sticking to RAW felt a bit unnecessarily strict here". Sucks he felt pressured into it but good to know he has grown past it.
It would help if it's explicitly acknowledged.
"According to the rules, this is supposed to happen. But I like your idea better, and it makes enough logical sense. I'll allow it."
@@theuncalledforI mean, that's effectively what he says, when he says "I'll allow it." Don't know why he'd need to spell it out every time.
@@ZaleraArkanus666
When did he _ever_ spell it out?
@@theuncalledfor If you watched the show and know even basic rules of D&D, you'd understand just from the way he says it. It's not his fault you aren't getting subtle clues in his expressions or tone.
Some advice i was given when i started DMing that i find to be the most helpful was this "Being a good DM isn't about enforcing the rules it's about knowing when to break them"
The thing to remember is this applies to the DM as well. A lot of players like to try and stomp all over the rules and the DM and end up ruining the game for them.
When I had someone recently approach me about wanting to be a GM I told him that the most important thing about being a GM is for everyone - including the GM to have fun
I'm always willing to break a rule to further the story or give a player a moment.
Example: A bard in the group was engaged in heated confrontation with an evil priest. He asked the priest, "Are you willing to die for your god?" The reply (obviously) was, "Of course". The player stood up and slapped me in the chest and screamed, "Feign Death!" I was so taken aback (and the priest was a minor enemy) that I let him have it.
This makes me happy. I would have allowed it too! I love you random person on the internet. You brought me joy!
I love his “you know what. I’ll allow it” then Sam says. No mat if that doesn’t work. And then Matt says. It’s ok you described how this would work I’ll allow it. Or Liam doing the same. It’s a good group. Matt’s knowledge of the rules is amazing. Helps the games run smoothly but also allows for bending and breaking when it makes sense or would be fun. Which is what he says when it happens.
I was dming for my friends in Curse of Strahd. They were facing the monster at the end of Death House, and one of my players was playing a blood hunter. The crimson rite they took was the one that gave their weapons lightning damage, and the boss of Death House has lightning absorption. That was when we realized that Crimson Rite doesn’t have a way for you to turn it off until you finish a short or long rest. Instead of making her fight that thing while healing it at the same time, we just quickly homebrewed a way to turn it off, by taking 1 die of your hemocraft damage. They won, but even then it was a nail biter, and one of the party members died. If they had to damage that thing while one of their teammates was kinda healing it, I think it would have been a TPK.
Good work. Btw rite turns off if your let go of the weapon. So in RAW there is already a way... drop your weapon and pick it up.
You could then roll the hemocraft dice to start another rite if you wanted...
"Play by the rules till it's not fun, then break them"
My approach as a musician as well. Good advice for many pursuits in life.
It's literally in the D&D books that the "rules" are meant to be bent, and that they act more like guidelines to help you understand how to play and have a basic system.
Isn't the golden rule at the start of the handbooks "The DM's word surpasses all, including all written rules" or something like that? Or am I imagining that being in the handbooks?
@@megaing1322 I think it's something to the effect of "The DM has ultimate discretion over the game."
exactly. newer books seem to forget to give that info.
@@megaing1322not imagining. this was the heart of the game according to originator gary gygax. seems this part gets list the further away from his owning the game we get.
Yeah, but there are a LOT of gaming elitists out in the world who think that the way THEY play the game is the only 'right way', and tend to try to run down others who play differently. Mercer's comment about people on the internet being upset with his DMing style is in reference to those kinds of people.
I don't know who needs to hear this (other than a person I know who will never see this), but this is even more true when your house rule prevents someone from having fun.
matt mercer has been my guiding light as a DM since i started a few years ago and thanks to having such a good guideline my players have enjoyed my games as a DM and i have had plenty of great stories with others.
You picked a good DM to do so with.
@@benpurcell4935 yeah when i started i looked up and found a reddit log with him answering all kinds of DM questions from all kinds of interviews and what not lol
In music theory, you have to know the rules before you can break them. Twain also said, “First get your facts, then distort them at your leisure.” Matt embodies these perfectly; he is both an expert and an artist. He has both knowledge and feel. He runs the game and he runs the show.
"Can I jump from the 2nd floor onto the enemy below?"
"Sorry theres an invisible wall there"
Exactly. People seem to forget that the #1 rule of DnD is to have fun. And that the DM is basically god and has final say in all rules disputes.
its fine to bend rules but you best know when to hold em and know when to fold em. some people like to have their fun at the expense of the fun of others.
Thank you Mercer for dropping that “rules rule”! Knowledge…once I started doing that, way back in the day: the game opened up in so many ways! Best advice ever!
And this is why the "Matt Mercer Effect" is a problem. Because this "Don't be a hardass for rules" works great with _their_ group. But the moment you get one asshole player that constantly just wants to be the main character of the party you're gonna have a bad time. Because now that you've set the precedent that "Rules are more guidelines", the rest of your players will argue against you and for main character player because "You let us do X in the past".
I'd say if you're going to bend or break a rule then you need to be willing to break it or bend every time it comes up in the future. Because if you give your players that in the past they are going to want to do it again at some point.
Basically, sometimes, you just do need to be a hardass. Otherwise everyone is just playing make believe and not, ya know, playing DnD.
The really hard call is when you want to be flexible for one player but another has been either leaning into those specific rules for their character mechanics or has been quietly observing those rules when they also would have benefited from flexibility and just never thought to ask. If a president has been set at your table, even if you weren't aware of it, be cautious in breaking it.
People need to understand that just because you want to do something "cool" outside of the rules, doesn't mean the GM is obligated to let you do it.
For one, just because YOU think it's cool, it doesn't mean it actually IS cool.
Secondly, that's how you end up with a free-for-all game where the rules end up not mattering at all, and you end up just playing a circle jerk, power fantasy, make believe story session.
I’ve heard Legends of Avantris call it “the rule of cool.”
theres a reason the books say to have fun. love his insight into that
The rules are there to make DMing easier, in the end the DM is the final judge. If a rule doesn't make sense in a situation, then it's time for a improvised homebrew exception.
The important thing is to remember *why* you follow the rules in the first place. The whole point is to have structure and internal consistency and so on in your game. That said, if a player comes up with a fun and creative idea, and the request sounds perfectly reasonable to you, then go ahead and bend the rules to accomodate their moment.
I like this the rule of cool advice you always hear is vague for newcomers and creates the ideal if every second of the game is not a fun the DM is wrong for enforcing basic rules. I'm not changing every spell because you think it should work the way you think it should. You cant polymorph in a dragon at level 3, but maybe we can lift some unnecessary restrictions through story and roleplay.
@@michealball1896 I agree and I feel it is important to reward players for the options they pick. If people want to transform into animals early they need to pick a druid. But perhaps a dragonborn with "Circle of the Moon" could choose a dragon form instead of just beasts using Wild Shape as this doesn't override any other choices as far as I know.
Maybe even deplete their firebreath ability in addition to wildshape to transform into a dragon. Since this is an additional feature to give to this class it doesn't feel wrong to be conservative and apply a few more restrictions that necessary than to allow something you might regret later on.
A more experience DM might be able to evaluate the balance better but at least with this you'd let the player play out they fanatasy if they're willing to pay the cost of building towards the concept.
Yes I know that the fact that flying speed would disquality most dragons early, but you might just disable swimming and flying speed till you actually unlock it in the druid class.
@sevret313 My problem is not eith experienced players, but the advice given by them to do what's cool with no qualifications. As you will have new players mad at core rules before they have even played a session and be arguing with the dm over everything they feel is not fun or hom brews they made with little regard for balancing or even usefulness. If you have been playing dnd for 10 years with other experienced players, the mindset you have will be vastly different then a new group starting because you are placing a heavy burden on a new DM. Learn the base game first before you try changing everything mid session because of the rule of cool.
I, myself, cannot fathom how much respect this guy gets from me on a general level.
The rules are there to make you think before you break them
I use inspiration for that. If you have a cool idea that the game rules don't really account for or are kinda grey about, burn inspiration and make the play. I like rewarding my players for good RP, so having a really meaningful moment for a character is rewarded by doing something really cool in combat.
"They're more like guidelines" ❤
Tell that to your cat in campaign 2 not having dark vision
ROFL.
Even the PHB basically says "The DM has the final say on everything."
I am a beginning level learning DM and if a player of mine gives me an epic moment that is not within the rules, I would bend it because the main reason to play is to have fun. Also, they would need to role a persuasion check on me to convince me lol. But fun before everything else
My DM when I said I wanted to play a Drow character was like… “Just so you know I don’t do sunlight sensitivity, I think it’s stupid” and I was low-key happy, I didn’t wanna play the entire game with disadvantage on everything
That's cool. I have a Kobold character, but for backstory reasons she spends her time almost exclusively on the surface, so one time I asked if I could ditch the sunlight sensitivity for her and got the ok to do so! Very nice not to have to worry about asking what the weather was.
baldurs gate 3 has done so many things right
Agree. I wanna play my lizardman without being completley dumb and just wanna eat with no futher depth. Thats why racial traits are often more marked as "cultural traits" rather then hard rules in my games
@void735 I mean nowhere in the books does it say that a lizard person has to be dumb though?
@@insertname3977 I think they confused dragonborn for lizardfolk
this makes me really wish Matt was more open about when he was consciously breaking a rule vs just not knowing
The one thing I always point out to rules lawyers is that the first edition of D&D says at the very start that the rules are only meant for basic structure and you are meant to use them or add your own as you see fit. The point of D&D is to experience a story and have fun, players and DM included.
5e also says something similar at the start of the PHB and the DMG. Rules lawyers truly like to pretend that they're the only ones able to read and retain information when they clearly show the opposite is true.
I mean, it's also worth remembering that everyone has their own tolerance for things. Some people really enjoy the game aspect and outright ignoring the rules can make the sessions feel unstructured and arbitrary.
@@piranhaplantX Which is why it might be more important knowing your players than knowing rules to be a good DM.
@@piranhaplantXfundamentally 99% of issues people have could just be solved with proper communication. In this case, if you don't like flexible interpretation of the rules or homebrew, say that during session 0, or just talk to your DM between sessions. (If they are worthy of being a DM they will atleast acknowledge your concerns and try to find a solution with you)
If you are _arguing_ with your DM mid session then the likes of communication have broken and nobody is having fun.
This is different from being helpful and finding information thats requested, or reminding people about something like active buffs or taking/recieving an opportunity attack.
And most importantly, don't argue on a ruling during a session, the DM is the referee and all you are doing is stopping play and making everyone else uncomfortable or annoyed. (They may even have a plan they haven't told you about)
@@mortisCZ Emphasizing the importance of a Session 0 where things like the degree of rule compliance can be discussed among players/DM openly.
There's been a plethora of moments which weren't possible according to the rule- but it was just so awesome. They were in-character, being so inventive, they deserve it
A great example of a rule that should have been broken but surprisingly never was was Frumpkin not getting dark vision... Cat like vision was literally used in the description of dark vision but the rules also said cats don't have it. 5e really goes out of it's way to make companion animals useless. I know it's a really hard line to walk between useless and game breaking but... It is mildly frustrating.. a cat not seeing in the dang dark. Come on son.
Especially since other Familiars CAN have darkvision or even blindsight (bat, snake).
I agree with one condition, note when you do something like that so you can be consistent. That way the player that remembers you did that is rewarded later when they find another way to use that ruling to their advantage.
also more importantly, remember that any time a GM break a rule for a player, the GM is allowed to also break it for the NPCs. so stating "if I allow you to do it, I'll be allowed to do it to you later" to make sure they REALLY want to do it is a good idea. that is great because that way you know if they really want to do it because it makes sense for them, or just because they are frustrated and want to break a rule to solve their problem.
This is a bad approach overall, they're already allowed to on dnd5e, for the same reasons they're allowed to allow the players to break the rules
Additionally, some things are more painful as a player than as a gm, the gm gets to play the world and all the characters in it, except the party members, and sometimes a couple pseudo-PC companions, but each player has at most 2, maybe in niche scenerios 3 entities they are playing as, and even 2 for 1 player is rare as heck
Paralysis is far less painful when it's used on a random mook and when you're still controlling 5 other characters, all able to free that 1 randok mook by breaking concentration
Being banished and basically dead then and there, that's far less devastating for an NPC than a player for pretty similar reasons
The way I see it, the rules are more for combat encounters and keeping things...somewhat under control. They give a framework to work within, but they shouldnt be so restrictive that they stop fun.
Love his rule on potions, my dm does a thing where you roll healing if you use a potion as a bonus action, but if you use a full action it automatically gives max healing
That's grand, essentially if you use the potion as a bonus action you're quickly consuming it, so there is a chance you fail to use all of it in that moment (like spilling some in the act of using it)
Whereas with more time one could make sure they fully embibe/apply the potion, thus guaranteeing full effects
I think this also mixes well with various potion-use concepts, such as needing to pour the potion over the wound, or needing to inhale it, or other more magical means of use.
The best example of this I find is throwing weapons, generally you can only draw one weapon a turn, which means that you're kinda screwed one you hit level 5 because you're dagger-throwing fighter can throw two or three knives a turn, but can only grab one a turn out of his belt. The rule just poses as an arbitary blockade that prevents a fun, flavourful character of a ranged fighter hurling daggers or shuriken rather than just taking a bow, so ignore it.
Rule #1 of games is having fun.
Absolutely!!!! This.
The DM/GM's most important job is knowing when to roll some dice behind the screen, make a face, and tell the player they just barely succeeded/failed, without even bothering to count the results, because it's what's best for the players and the story.
this is very true and also applies in real life
Everything in moderation. Including moderation. If I were to try to sum up how I strive to live my life, I'd say that quote is the closest to summing it up that I can think of.
I think it doesn't really applies for real life, that's pretty much a rule for games.
Although the fact I'm on the receiving end of people deciding rules/boundaries are impeding their fun so time to ignore them, so maybe I'm not seeing the fun of deciding this rule is stopping from having fun so time get around it
I don't think this applies my dude. "Red lights are rules, but it's more fun to ignore them." See how this doesn't translate very well. Not being a real life murder hobo is definitely one rule I don't want to hear our government say "I'll allow it" to.
@@alancode2147I mean, running a red light would certainly be more thrilling. Not advisable in the least, but I imagine it could be more interesting than running a green light.
Such great advice. Matt is a king of kings.
The PHB for dnd specifically states to not use it perfectly, you should use it as a building block for sure, but don’t make the game about winning or losing. Everyone should be having fun, nobody wants to feel cheated because a rule says “well it doesn’t work that way because …”. I want to do cool shit, and sometimes even small moments get ruined by weird obscure rules that make it super lame to play and that makes people quit
Git gud
The thing about rules is that you have to know them and their purpose well before you can break them well.
A true child of the Rule of Cool
One might as well play with blank dice with no numbers on them
@@brendanhewerWe get it. You like to play closer to the rules. That is absolutely fine and you are absolutely in your right to play the game you want to play. Just like people who do not want to stick as close to the rule set are also in their right to play the way it is fun for them.
Games have been played this way for hundreds of years. It’s no different than every family having different house rules for Monopoly or Clue or Scrabble.
Sage wisdom from Matthew "Casts Shield to Stop a Grapple" Mercer
The PHB and DMG both explicitly say that the rules are guidelines. If a rule doesn't make sense for your game or your table just doesn't like it, don't use it.
😢 thank you, Matthew... I'm only just starting campaign 3. But dammit you all are super fun to watch.
bro why is he pitch shifted? they made him sound like pointdexter!
Sounded like Ben Shapiro to me 😂
If my players want to do something and find a way to do it that makes sense in the timezone and lore of the world, they can do it. Does it fuck up a week of planning? Doesnt matter. Its their story, im just telling it. Alot of DMs need to lose the ego before they lose their players
People forget that on like the first page of the DMG it says that the rules are all suggestions and the final judgement is always on the DM. The most important thing is consistancy otherwise it feels like cheating or unfair punishment to the player
that's pretty much the same for any TTRPG core rulebook I own
In my campaigns we always have two sets of rules we either do rules for long term
Or in my one shots we do "rule of cool" where impracticality is thrown aside because it's four people in a room just trying to unwind from a hard week, we want to have fun not be balanced
They're not so much rules, as they are suggestions.
This is very much how I try and DM. The rules are guidelines but if they’re too restrictive I’ll bend the rules as far as I can. The apex of that are the characters in my world who legitimately BREAK the rules of 5e because of their divine power and if they can do it, the players should be allowed to as well.
Imagine being at a (digital) table where the DM googles literally every rule and if they're not happy what google says, they come up with their own interpretation, which is usually specifically designed to fuck with the player for the DM's own enjoyment. Of course this is a hypothetical situation that wasn't my existence 4 nights a week for almost two years.
Why would you hassle yourself with a DM like that?
four nights a week????????????
@@floccinaucinihilipilificat6749 It was an incredibly toxic situation that I'm kind of ashamed to have been a part of. The DM was player-turned-DM after the original DM ghosted us. At first, he was DMing for us for free, but then tried to turn it into a business, wanting to DM literally like 10 paid games a week. I was at the height of my D&D obsession, so every time the DM announced he was starting a new campaign, a lot of us just immediately signed up, paying $15 each for three campaigns, so each person was paying $45 a week.
The DM's primary storytelling medium was bullying and trauma. He was the definition of adversarial in his DMing and consistently made his decisions based off of external information, and even went as far as to almost intentionally kill a brand new player's character because they dared to bring Protection from Evil and Good on their paladin to a Strahd campaign.
He devised a "Soul Item" system that was literally game-breaking in every imaginable way. These items were sentient and intended to drive character development. My cleric was a fisherman by trade, so naturally, the DM thought it appropriate to give this INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT ITEM the voice and personality of the "Nice day for fishin, innit?" guy from Viva La Dirt League.
My warlock used a homebrewed Pact of the Raven Queen subclass which had a feature that gave me a raven familiar. The raven was intended to be serve as an altruistic guide for my character. Nope. Instead, the DM never missed an opportunity to have the raven call my character an asshole and otherwise be completely dismissive and unhelpful.
After a while of consistent in-session bullying, you start to realize that ... maybe it's pointed and intentional.
VERY important for a DM. Unimportant for a GM. The rest of us just play better systems that let you do that cool thing. Or gives you a guide on how you can make the cool thing into a balanced house rule that you can keep consistant. because the worst thing about rule bending is when it leaves others players thinking "Wait I didn't get that option when I was doing that." which is why the most important thing, that keeps players having fun, is to play something better than DnD.
Yeah, that's part of it, pf1e is great in that it is a mostly consistent, thorough simulationist system, it gives you the tools to represent whatever you want, including what's required to make that happen, positive and negative consequences
This lets everyone be on the same page on what is and isn't possible in this world, at least mostly, and that gives everyone at the table more freedom, because you don't need to phrase every action as a request, you just do it, and that lets you pull out creative solutions to problems, but creative solutions within the bounds of what's already allowed. The main place you need to be phrasing your decisions as a request is with item crafting and acquisition, and chargen, that's really it, and that makes sense, chargen includes factors the system itself literally cannot account for without using exclusively premades, your backstory, while you can systemize some elements, you're just playing the game from birth if it covers everything, and the build sometimes just doesn't mesh with the party or the backstory you've given, the build might make sense to exist in the world, but not in this story in this world
That's how I understand the OSR tenet: "Rulings, not Rules".
Rules so that you can make a ruling is my overall stance, you can't know the rules if no rules exist, and you need to know the rules before you can break them effectively
Additionally, OSR systems are useless, half of them are equivilant to base d20 system at best in how much they actually give you to work with, followed by some scenerio examples, which is useless, the existance of the rules doesn't restrict you, the rules are just the starting point so everyone is on the same page before they sit down at the table to play, so they all know what they're agreeing to, so when the gm or another player is stepping out of bounds, and it hasn't been put forth that we're fine with that deviation to the rules, that can be disputed, and if they're doing something we all agreed to already, you can't try and say no without immediately getting called out for going back on your word
OSR takes heavy inspiration from gary gygax himself, the guy who's strict on the rules and how the players are there to play along with whatever the gm wants to do, and they should be happy with anything and everything the gm says, even when that means that elves are incapable of being barbarians or even just fighters, or that alignment is a language, and unless you're evil, you cannot understand evil people unless they choose to speak normal, and you cannot even decipher it through study without becoming evil
Best advice to any player or gm there's no wrong way to play.
I know of and have seen too many DMs who would froth at the mouth at this statement while screaming "No!!! ThE rUlEs MuSt Be FoLlOwEd No MaTtEr WhAt!!!"
Number 1 BEST advice for DMing. Your job as a DM isn't to enforce the rules on your players. It's to help everyone at the table have a good time. If that means you have to fudge or throw out some rule to allow a great moment to happen where everyone is aghast and just loves it! DO IT! But recognize when that moment comes and don't just do it to do it unless you and your players agree on homebrewing rules.
There is a huge difference between knowing the rules and breaking them and getting a rule wrong. Its always fine as long as it is a conscious choice
Sometimes, as the DM you need to balance rule of cool and RAW.
Is this vid pitched up and sped up? Matt's voice here almost sounds like a certain right wing commentator
Oh god not that comparison 😂, but yes I had to speed it up like 4% to make it fit within the UA-cam shorts 60s time limit
@@Pixelists haha I figured, so funny though xD
depends on the rule, some rules are meant to keep the way they are for balancing purposes but if its a stupid problem/silly rule then its perfectly acceptable for the DM to homebrew a solution
So true!
This is the Nr.1 Rule for any TTRPG and the only one that should NOT be broken:
Follow the rules as long as they make sense and don‘t prevent players (or GMs) from having fun.
I‘ve bent or broken many a rule in my time GMing because I wanted to tell a compelling story rather than wag my finger at players telling them that their creative thinking doesn‘t go with the rules.
Thankfully all the DMs/GMs/Storytellers I‘ve ever played with have had the same philosophy.
It makes me happy to see him both acknowledge that he had a period of being harder on the rules and that he realised and stopped doing that. I loved the chill vibes in the beginning of CR.
(Just wanted to add since I know this could be interpreted as me no longer watching because I disapproved of said hardassery - that's not the case. He was never *that* strict. ^^ I couldn't handle the heavier "emphasis"/incorporation of character (NPC and PC) deaths so I had to stop for my shaky mental health.)
And you know what? He gets it right! One example I think of him improving on the rules is making potions a bonus action to drink. Sure its not logical (uncorking & drinking something irl takes way more effort than swinging a sword twice), but its more fun! And it quickens the pace of combat, allowing more interesting things than having a player basically having to swallow their turn. At my table & a friends table I play at we've been experimenting with the initiative system, and have each in turn found ways to make combat both faster & encourage more tactical gameplay, just by abandoning old notions of how turn based combat should work. Seriously guys, if something doesn't work for you & your players, absolutely be willing to change it!
This is the number one thing I've always used to guide my DMing. I don't watch crit role but it's cool that Matt and I have a similar stance on "if a rule gets in the way of fun, then it's not worth holding onto (at least in the moment)"
I’m not typically someone who allows a bunch of crazy homebrew stuff in my game, but I stand by bending the rules for my players when it makes sense. My whole “job” as a DM is to create an experience for my players- a fun one. I pour my entire soul into my campaigns, down to the tiniest little details that often never even get explored. I do it out of love for the game and love for my players. We’re all at the table to have fun! And while rules are definitely necessary sometimes, it’s good to know when to let them go a little bit.
For example: letting spellcasters use the "Two weapon fighting" bonus action to cast a centrip after casting a spell like fireball. I do this to keep my party's spellcasters up to speed with the martial classes.
This is a perfect example of when you shouldn't break the rules. If a spellcaster wants to cast a spell and a cantrip then they have the quicken metamagic.
If spellcasters is falling behind your martial then it's because you've done something wrong and buffed your martials accidentally.
@@sevret313 or the casters are heavily kneecapping themselves somehow
If this was pathfinder, I'd understand, martials are just more powerful in pf2e, and in pf1e, martials are at worst, slightly behind, but with dnd5e? Casters are just more powerful usually, purely due to cantrip scaling being more than enough to keep up with most ranged martials
Without cantrips, sure, you can very easily get a pretty balanced setup when using the rests to resource expending encounters guideline properly, because then the martials are still able to do the majority of their things, even when running on empty, but casters can't and actually need to conserve their abilities
All of this as someone who mains casters in both pf1e (my favorite ttrpg system) and dnd5e, damaging cantrips need nerfed in dnd5e, and people need to force me to be careful about how many spells I use. Dnd5e is a resource management game, simple as that, it's barely even a collaborative storytelling system, because the rules don't help with that much at all, and the rules are the entirety of the system, everything else is the campaign or the people at the table. The main mechanical divide between casters and martials is how strict their resource management is, martials just have health as their main limiter for how long they can keep going, but casters need their spell slots to do anything on the same level as the martials, but can do more powerful things when they're at full power, sure, a caster can craft better than any mundane crafter, but they need their slots for that, sure, they may be able to conjure a perfect shelter whenever, but they... wait, they have ritual casting for tiny hut, and that's another issue, ritual casting, it's neat, and makes some sense in some cases, but it needs to be more restricted to keep this divide as well
Rules as written is classical music. Rule of cool is jazzz
Ya like jazz? 🐝 😎
I've not encountered any DMs who are sticklers for rules EXCEPT when it's obvious a player is taking the piss for their own personal gain.
Oddly enough, it's often those same piss-takers who'll get shitty with a DM for being flexible for others who aren't taking the piss, but are asking if it's possible to do something fun.
I think it's because those players are purely motivated by selfishness, and can't imagine anyone else not being equally selfish.
Omg Matt Mercer understands people having fun playing a game, absolutely crazy.
He's almost right - and here's the real secret, for free. The rules BELONG to you and your group. Change them whenever and however you want to. The game is yours. Rules designers are just people, they don't know your table better than you.
No company or corporation can ever own D&D, it's always been ours.