Reading the "TERRIBLE" 44 Rules for D&D
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 чер 2024
- OSQ Dice! ► www.awesomedice.com/collectio...
Support the Channel! ► / oneshotquesters
SUBSCRIBE for all the Nat 20 luck ► / @oneshotquesters
📱 FOLLOW OSQ SOCIALS 📱
► beacons.ai/oneshotquesters
► / discord
🎥 EDITORS 🎥
► / @swordplaysorcery
📧 BUSINESS INQUIRY 📧
► business@osqtv.com
Reading and REACTING to the FULL 44 RULES OF D&D posted on REDDIT. Originally posted on SUBREDDIT DNDHORRORSTORIES and RPGHORRORSTORIES. (Original post has been taken down by OP)
One Shot Questers is a comedic channel dedicated to tabletop role-playing games, encompassing a range of titles such as Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition 2014 & 2024 (DnD 5e), Baldur's Gate 3 (BG3), Pathfinder (PF 1, PF 2), and DC20. Our content covers a variety of TTRPG topics, including news, class or character stereotypes, guides & how to’s on gameplay, rules, tips, tricks, and much more, all presented in a humorous and entertaining video. For a quick taste of our most popular content, check out our short-form videos on platforms like TikTok, UA-cam Shorts, and Instagram Reels. - Розваги
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
0:00: Introduction and Questions
7:32: The List Begins
8:06: Rule 1
12:32: Rule 2
21:29: Rule 3
26:22: Donation Goal Setting
33:41: Rule 4
39:32: Rule 5
39:51: Donation Goal Reached (initial reaction at 40:06)
41:17: Donation Goal Reaction
43:37: Rule 6
50:15: Rule 7
54:04: Rule 8
55:11: Rule 9 (but actually FaintSpeaker's 100 gifted subs)
58:24: Rule 9 (actually)
1:00:35: Rule 10
1:03:32: Rule 11
1:07:02: Rule 12
1:10:37: Rule 13
1:15:45: Rule 14
1:21:41: Rule 15
1:24:26: Rule 16
1:34:00: Rule 17
1:36:00: Rule 18
1:39:21: Rule 19
1:43:25: Rule 20
1:44:30: Rule 21
1:50:06: Rule 22
1:51:39: Rule 23
1:53:54: Rule 24
1:55:38: Rule 25
1:56:35: Rule 26
2:00:42: Rule 27
2:04:47: Rule 28
2:06:54: Rule 29
2:08:09: Rule 30
2:11:43: Rule 31
2:13:27: Rule 32
2:14:07: Rule 33
2:15:30: Rule 34
2:18:19: Rule 35
2:19:10: Rule 36
2:19:26: Rule 37 (except it's Dice Goblins Anonymous)
2:21:05: Rule 37 (actually)
2:24:41: Rule 38
2:26:39: Rule 39
2:27:37: Rule 40
2:28:02: Rule 41
2:28:32: Rule 42
2:29:00: Rule 43
2:29:18: Rule 44
2:29:59: Wrap-Up, Answering the Questions
2:33:34: Outro
Thank you🎉😂
@@ambblackbee1541 My pleasure.
so...fun fact
the poster of this actually deleted the post after redditors dug into his history and found that he bragged about the group giving the DM a bad time
the same DM who wrote all these rules wrote them in response to their own horrible behavior, and it shows
I expected the player posting it was rewording a bunch of things to try and make the DM look bad, but htis was a plot twist I hadn't seen coming. Redditors actually doing some digging instead of knee-jerking is a new one for me, lol.
Yea, nobody creates a list of rules like this unless it is either a complete joke/troll post, or there's a long history bad and toxic behavior at the table.
Personally, I'd love to see the DM in question post the list and site examples of why each rule was created.
@@torgranael yes, they're usually very shallow thinkers. And if you click on the old post, you will still find a lot of those shallow thinkers being smugnorant about what went on here. But littered among them are actually intelligent and perceptive responses who figured out who the real villains here are .
Sounds about right. This entire post DEFINITELY reeks of "I've McFucking had it with y'all."
I figured this out about 4 rules in that the players mistreated this GM to help and this was retaliation.
Note
There's a reason for the DM going on a Hiatus, apparently in the Reddit post comments it was revealed that the players themselves were that reason, and not only that but they were apparently BEGGING the DM to come around and DM for them again despite not wanting to, and when they finally did, they created these 44 rules *specifically* for this ONE GROUP.
All of these rules seem to have been made because of things that *these* specific players were doing ranging from the destruction of the DM's gear, trying to cheat through the game with their dice rolls or using divination/owls to presumably ALSO cheat the game, and all these other rules, so safe to say that this list of 44 rules was not just a rule list, it was a VERY spiteful "break-up" letter by calling out every single thing the players have done
Also Turns out the reason the poster deleted the tweet was because the internet found a post of the OP bragging about being dicks to this DM. makes all the sense in the world
this dm is also an asshole. he isn't free from judgement cause his players sucked. both dm and players are absolutely awful
If my DM was like this I would brag about pissing him off too.
@@xRussianbishop
@@lahlybird895you didn't understand, the players made him have a bad time on purpose and he started writing these rules because his players were assholes
@@lahlybird895 cool story karen
My favorite "pointless room" in my dms campaign was a room with nothing but a small chest, a broom, a mop, and a couple barrels, my dumb butt threw my dagger at the chest assuming mimic, then got whapped over the head by an animated broom, my party then entered to me beating the corpse of a broom with my sword cursing at it, and promptly assumed i was crazy, i then had to convince them over the next 4 sessions that i was in fact, not crazy
😭 I'm actually crying reading this lmao
What an amazing "pointless room"
Thats more of a Point room... BECAUSE THE POINT OF THE BROMM WHAPPED YOU!!! 😂😂😂😂.
Sorry i couldn't resist the bad pun
MY CHARACTERS HAD THE EXACT SAME EXPERIENCE
We were running the Death House in Curse of Strahd, one of them (Bard) ran into an Animated Broom and got knocked unconscious in two turns. Our Paladin had to save him while our two Druids were off (smartly) not getting involved.
Just a typical broom closet in a magical mansion
"My dm just posted this after a hiatus" His players mocked his NPC, ignore his plot hooks, compare his campain to CR, drink, smoke and overall, disrespect him, of corse he need a hiatus my brother in chirst.
"How to make sure toxic players don't want you to DM for them ever again. Nuclear Option"
My thoughts exactly. It sounds to me like this DM has players who don't want to accept his rulings, don't want to experience consequences for their actions, and generally want to mess around and do whatever they want, both in and out of game. He needs to get some new players.
Pretty sure the DM's list of rules breaks rule 29.
He's setting up this list of rules, not for the players to have fun, but so that they all play D&D by his rules.
This is because, to the DM, D&D is serious business.
Which goes against Rule 29, as written.
Now, if he has to go _this_ far with his players, and his players really are _this_ bad, I figure that he'd be better off with starting over with a whole new group. His players sound like absolute garbage, who are there more to get stoned off their asses than play D&D. They also trashed some of his stuff, lied and gaslit him, and basically ruined the whole experience. As such, if I was in the DM's position, I'd simply call an end to the campaign then and there, and would refuse to give anyone in that party so much as a second glance, let alone a second chance.
That being said, the level of pure spite in these rules makes me feel like spiting the DM in kind. I personally wouldn't consider myself to be a "bad player," but with this list, I would want to do everything I could to maliciously comply with his rulings to _just_ such an extent that I wouldn't get kicked out of the group. However, I'd always be the one rolling skill checks (rule 18), I'd _auto-fail_ those checks for the _whole party_ (Rule 21), I'd constantly be making Wizards with _no_ spell lists (Rule 39), constantly accruing exhaustion/half-health damage (various rules [in particular, I would be showing up exactly _one_ minute late each time, _specifically_ for Rule 13]), swan-dive into every insta-kill trap/mechanic I could (Rule 22), and I would constantly bring a full playlist that's comprised of nothing but the most obnoxious Polka music I could find (Rule 42).
Oh, and every time I lose one of the _several_ Wizards I have written up for that day? I'd ask the DM to help me write a new one. I double and triple-checked his rules, and *_none_* of them say that you can't ask for the DM's help, when it comes to writing new characters (which I will make double and triple-sure is _always)._ The DM can't complain, since I'm following his punishments for breaking his rules, without complaint. In fact, I'm _smiling_ as my fifth character of the day goes down, as that's the fifth character that he'll have to help me replace before tomorrow. If he doesn't like it? All I'm doing is just enforcing the punishment for breaking his rules (far more than he'd desire).
TL;DR: I'm making my own Rule 46, where the DM's spite gets repaid in triplicate. I normally don't try to ruin campaigns, especially not to _this_ extent, but if there's one thing that ticks me off, it's someone being _this_ spiteful, and not expecting to be repaid in kind. I'm not defending his players, as they sound like hot garbage. However, his spite gets my ire far more than the players do, since he could have simply stopped DMing for the toxic group altogether, instead of doubling-down on the toxicity, and trying to nail them with 45 rules of pure spite.
What does CR stand for
@@holdensaia5962 It either means Challenge Rating, or Catatonic Rutabaga. I'll let you decide which.
So far I'm at rule 12. If I had this much hostility and this much need for these kinds of rules I'd
A) get new friends.
B) demand more money.
C) get new clients/whatever. People who are beautiful enough to pay a DM and deserve it are surely out there.
D) lash out with wild contempt into an unstoppable onslaught of prompt and immediate violence. It could happen.
e) find a therapist thats cheap. Or a dm that works too
@@pauloandrade925 I didn't say it but since they're written by a DM I'm imagine my need for them would have been as a DM so finding a DM would do nothing. It'd just be 2 DMs who're hugging and weeping due to clearly losing their minds.... And they would definitley need a therapist at that point. Groupon baby!
@@dhotnessmcawesome9747 Hahahahaha yeah
I feel so bad for this GM, because they were being tormented by their players to the point where this rules list was the nicest way of moving forward with the group. Wild shit.
2:22:00 (Rule 37) I think a better way to put it would be, "I'm your friend, but as a DM I'm not your character's friend."
Yep!
If I see the sheer vitriol in the posts, I believe that the DM meant exactly what he said lol
You formatted the time wrong. That's only 2 minutes into the video, not 2 hours.
I have to admit, Duke not cursing is such an endearing trait, him going "golly!" makes me so happy
So on rule 5, my table has an unofficial rule where if the speech is done, we are asked what do you say. If it is a really rousing or intimidating, our Dm holds the right to say no roll needed, that is a success. But if it’s someone not as comfortable, they give the idea they want to convey then roll.
Mine does too.
Isn’t that standard? In my table one of my players is a negotiator. As in he works in company and usually he’s in charge of deals and stuff. He always knows what to say, and cause of that I make DC for those checks low. And he’s not even charisma type class)
@@danzansandeev6033- I honestly think that's what the DM was intending, but the posting player intentionally "misunderstood"
@@danzansandeev6033 I wouldn't allow my players to do that. Because one of my players is a successful business lady who can talk anyone to do anything. I'm protected myself from her silver tongue by the dice.
And yes, she plays a Barbarian.
This is how I run things too. If the speech is good or if the trick or action is clever or creative, I just say you succeed. If an enemy is unable to defend itself in any way, attacks auto succeed as well. If someone were to roll anyway and failed (which happens sometimes and I allow it) I would have to change the situation, like enemy wakes up or breaks out of their constraints. If a player is in an auto succeed scenario, sometimes I have them do a roll just to determine how cool they can do their action.
I don't like when players don't give any context to what they're trying to roll. "I want to investigate." What are you investigating and how? You're not a detective so I can't assume your character will do so like one and just automatically find anything regardless of how good the roll is. Rolling a 20 while staring at a wall won't get you anything.
I read the Reddit post in the 1st half hour, didn't comment but left shaking my head.
About an hour later, it was still on my mind as I though "What did you players do to hurt your GM so bad"
According to the other comments, they were serious dicks to him.
i think the meaning behind "expect to twiddle your thumbs" was 'until we get to a good intro point after the fight'
That's what I was thinking.
Yeah, it’s like, “don’t expect to swap out your dead character with your new one as if the death never happened”. You’re sitting that fight out.
Of note, if it was the *player* that submitted this... How big are the odds that they snuck some worse rules in, or changed the wording to make the DM's rules seem worse than they actually were?
It was a player posting this. He deleted his post because people dug up his comment history about making fun of the DM. This is just a classic case of shit players.
i think the twittle your thumbs was you are going to sit there until we get to town to introduce you not just jump in the middle of the fight
My biggest thing that I don't agree with you on is character death. If the character can't die in a fight without their permission, that hurts tension and breaks immersion. That being said, if your players are about to do something really stupid, "So to clarify, you wish to go up to the Legendary creature at LEVEL 4! and attack? Are you sure?" if they say yes that is on them.
This, but i'd also add, "If the GM/Player thinks it will serve the story to kill a character, then it needs to be with GM/Player consent", A sacrificial player character can have more impact than a sacrificial NPC, both as a story element to create tension, and immersion, also a gentle reminder that their characters are not immortal (unless the setting has them as immortal), but to do it well you need a player who is ok with doing it and can do it, they need to play that character as if they want to keep it.
Yeah, his opinions on character death are the exact opposite of every person I've ever known's opinion of ruling. Why would you have to give consent to kill a PC in combat? It should be assumed that that is a possible consequence of any combat. If people want a deathless campaign, that needs to be a discussion at session 0, not in the middle of combat. Also, if your character dies, why would your second character be able to immediately jump into combat? That makes no mechanistic or narrative sense for the game. If I've prepped 5 characters, can I just keep rotating them out when they die until I kill the boss monster?
@@thomasdegroat6039 the rotation of characters on a death can work, but it has to be done at the right time in the right circumstances, i.e. it serves the narrative of the story or a hand of GM resurrection serving the narrative, but either the whole group needs to know beforehand or the player.
example of the first is session zero of "the all guardsmen party"
example of the second is a player wants to multiclass into cleric at some point but hasn't been the most religious, they go down in combat, deity saves them, boom set up for multiclassing into cleric, other players get the "Oh shit" moment and the "Oh damn" moment and a reminder that deities exist in your setting and can act on their own bidding.
@@MrTrilbe I agree but that's a pretty niche situation that would require agreement between the player and DM beforehand and would not normally occur in regular gameplay, unlike what One Questers Questers was suggesting.
@@thomasdegroat6039 yeah, I guess, but I think GMs and players are I wouldn't say lacking imagination, because they're not, maybe missing opportunities to use unusual situations and options to start the game off or ways to rp changes, I don't know it could just be my dislike of the "you all meet in a tavern" start and the optimised build with no in character reason, other than "cool abilities". But each to their own, my idea of a good game differs from others and that's fine.
I have a No Orphans rule. My reason is explicit: My players were killing more parents than Disney, and it needed to stop. Like, seriously, *every* character was an orphan, and what few had A parent still alive, that parent wouldn't know they existed, or they're some mysterious figure that could be an antagonist. It just gets SO boring as DM to keep presiding over.
I kind of agree with Rule 2. "If you want harder fights" is really the key here. So what I'm seeing is that the players were ASKING for the DM to crank it up, and then.... the DM did, and they expected to be able to just immediately hop back in the game.
My first character was a rogue. I didn't do the trope of his parents were dead. I went with they were trying to force him to have a lifestyle he hated and he just ran. The best part is that he's a changeling so it was easy for him to hide from them
The reason why we keep making orphans is because the DM keeps screwing with our parents every time we have them.
So if the DM’s going to make us orphans, might as well just make ourselves orphans at the start to save you the effort. 😂
@@Lobsterwithinternet See, I don't do that, because it makes for WAY better scenes. Like, yeah, you almost died fighting a lich, and now your mom's apoplectic about how you could've died.
@@dragonstryk7280 Then you're the exception.
Because many DMs' go-to for creating drama is kidnapping/killing whatever family you have. It gets boring after a while.
It sounds to me as if there have been multiple conversations about a lot of these rules and his players continued to exhibit the poor behavior. The rules regarding being late and meta gaming in particular stand out to me here. I think the reason the punishment is so severe is because they've had this discussion multiple times now and he's trying to get across just how serious he is about this.
They fudged around and found out.
I believe a lot of people are misreading rule #1. It's not 1 minute to do your entire turn, it's 1 minute to start telling the dm what you are going to do. Doesn't mention a time limit on actually resolving your turn.
Thanks for pointing this out!
When hearing people talk about timed turns, it always frustrates me, since i have mental/neurological issues that make it hard to have complicated turns done fast. But i also always do my best to plan ahead to minimize how it affects the turn
It makes absolute sense to say 'if you cant engage to your turn, you dont get to have it" but i never read it that way till you pointed it out
DM was setting harsh ground rules for a reason. Shit went down in his house andhe was done.
i took this list as someone setting a ridiculous price for a job they don't want to do, like "Sure i'll mow your lawn for $1500 an hour" kind of thing
14:51 id interpret that as "im not just gonna magic your character into it, therye gonna be introduced organically, which means you may have to wait a couple minutes" but i could be wrong
For #6. Blades in the Dark has a great segment about this, that you should give your players enough information to make decisions. Dont tell them "Oh something seems to be happening somewhere" and expect them to get a hint, be more explicit like "You hear people on the street talking in hushed tones while you tend to your drinks in the local tavern, it seems Governor Able is looking for someone to help him with retrieving a lost artifact he believes was stolen by his rival Lady Goodwinter." There, the players now know Who to talk to, and What they might do and Who they're up against real fast.
i read the first three rules out to my parents (my dad who dm'd first edition dnd and my mum who has no real knowledge on dnd but is a psychologist) and my mum immediately said that it sounded like a burnt out dm and that they needed a longer break before they came back. tbh i think that this group needs to find new people to dm/play with bc its quite clear theyre not healthy/good for each other.
considering that it was found out that one of the players posted that to further dig at the dm....yeah.
@@xSaraxMxNeffx oh yeah - that is awful tbh
"You already have enough dice." That goes against the 11 Yahzick Commandments
1. Find a group of friends who can agree to meet up on the same day.
2. You gotta decide what you want to do. The role that you play is entirely up to you.
3. Never be ambiguous when you can be precise.
4. Don't be mean spirited when you can be nice.
5. There's no such thing as too many dice.
6. Think twice before starting a fight.
7. Make sure you have a rope and a light.
8. Try to avoid any unnecessary confrontation.
9. Pay attention to your story line's dictation.
10. Everything you do has an affect on the narrative.
11. Understanding your character is imperative.
I feel like something that should be acknowledged is that this is clearly a conflict that should NEVER have gone public. While this is definitely a combination of the Players being very antagonistic and the DM being very retaliatory, the fact of the matter is that the Players were the ones who made it public, so GIVEN the background context, I’m more likely to give a bigger side eye the players for airing their group’s dirty laundry when it absolutely didn’t need to be public.
The guy that posted the tuleset was one of the truoble player that got high and drunk and broke stuff in the DM's house and when the DM tried to move away from them through a huatus they begged and moaned for him to run the campaign again and he spitefully sent this rules to them, they posted online as another attempt to bully the DM
@@murilosampaio1264 That’s why I’m side eyeing them, and am more likely to believe the accounts of their shitty behavior. They knew they were in the wrong, and figured to try and get one last hurrah by airing this shit in public. Something that, near as I can tell, did not work after people uncovered the reason certain rules were put in.
@@CmacDaMan09 Yeah, they were dumb enough to be surprised people did not vibe with "breaking your friend's house down", yeah no shit
Personally i think for rule 35, if the person's sheet is lost or ends up unusably damaged then they get a pass once. I would probably have each player update a spare sheet that i keep with the rest of my stuff at the end of each session, so that they have the single back up, however if they use the backup spare sheet, its up to them to provide another spare sheet, if they want another back up.
My players were given the option at the start of the game to leave their sheets with me; all but one of them happily took that option. I keep them in a binder on a bookshelf so they're always ready to use. If we do level ups between sessions, I update the sheets (while talking to the players). They also have the option to keep it digitally (as long as their phones don't become distracting). I think it's reasonable for the DM to say no sheet, no play, but there are ways to make that rule easier to follow.
For number 2, I never try to murder my Player's characters, that being said I will also not protect them from what I like to call Deaths by Stupidity, if the players knowingly go into a situation that they know they will probably kill them, then I'm not going to pull my punches, they will face it at full strength.
Death by Stupidity is a good way to say it.
Not timing but my DM does have a “please prepare your turn before it comes up” rule. There will always be exceptions though like if the player before you gets in the way of your spell range or suddenly needs healing or something. But having your turn prepared is just basic etiquette.
Yeah, there have been so many times where for the entire round I know exactly what I'm going to do, then the player before me does something that destroys all my plans
While I disagree with the rule about deadly fights, I also disagree with Duke's take on this. I don't think you need a player's consent for killing their character. In the same way that stupid decisions or suicidal ones can make it reasonable to kill a character, bad tactical decisions and rolls can pile up and make it reasonable too. If I'm fighting a giant and my character falls at 0 hit points, let me die if I fail my save rolls.
We've got a lot of ways to avoid these PC deaths. Someone may heal the downed character. They may be resurrected if they fail those death saves. You can even have an enemy heal them just to keep them alive and ask the group to surrender if they don't want the PC to die. I'm also a great defender that attacking a downed player should only be done in very rare occasions, because the enemies usually are still fighting the rest of the group, they would prioritize defeating them before making sure every enemy is really dead. There are a lot of ways to reduce the chance of death and to avoid it being a definitive goodbye to the character.
That being said, if I'm fighting a bossfight and my character dies, even if they haven't fulfilled their objectives, their death can be satisfactory. Not only is an appropiately dramatic time for a character's death, it's also a reminder that the PCs are mortals. Removing the death "by chance" and only allowing it with the player's consent makes it feel like there's no real danger. Yeah, I know that if I do something dumb you may say "okay, that was suicidal, so I won't let you survive", but what about less obviously deadly acts? If I fight head on against the troll to avoid him reaching my badly hurt players, are you just going to kill me because it's suicidal? What if the troll was practically dead and I at full health but bad rolls make me loose anyway? Can I tell you that I don't want my character to die yet, removing any sense of danger from the troll's fight?
I get that in most games you wouldn't want to kill a player's character in a normal fight against goblins or something like that. Player's deaths should usually be left for dramatically appropiate moments. But asking for permission? To me, it takes away any stakes. If I know that unless I do something dumb I can ask you not to kill my PC, I know I'm virtually immortal. I won't worry if I see my HP getting really low. I won't feel any urgency when I see another PC fall unconscious. I may not even feel excitement from winning a difficult fight because, in the end, I know it doesn't really matter, because if we lost we would all still be alive and fine.
Yes, DND or any other TTRPG is a narrative-driven game, so narrative is important. Killing a player for a bad roll in an insatisfactory way should usually not be done, because it's ignoring the narrative aspect of the game. But the opposite, asking for permission, is ignoring the game aspect of the game. The game is built upon those two pillars, and the ideal is balanced between them. You shouldn't treat the game like a wargame, but you have HP and death saves because death should still be possible through the game's mechanics, not just by player's choice.
Rule 2: I disagree with the player deciding when they die if it's due to their dice rolls or decisions. Zero hits, 3 failed death saves, at best you're getting some last words once someone can get to you or start digging through pockets/embark on a quest for a ressurection
Exactly! I really didn't like what Duke said. At that point I would play a lower risk game
"So the dragon your charged into as a lvl 2 character predictably oneshots you. May I please kill your character? No? Ok, you only get a slight sunburn from the scorching flames and wake up after the fight.". Pathetic. Just do improv if fights mean nothing.
At my table we have a "injury system" which is, I think, is a good compromise - you don't really die (if its not a teamwipe which is rare) but you roll a die to learn the consequences. Once my first-level gnome ranger distracted ogre all by himself while party was busy by orc gang around the corner and got absolutely obliterated (I mean, five turns without boss was a huge deal) but we won that encounter so I "just" got permanent brain damage (-1 INT). It wasn't that big of a deal, but I just got lucky - it could be a missing leg or arm which would be quite dire, suffice to say
@@SiPistolathat's not what he said though? Like he explicitly said it was in the event of like, bad rolls, not a player doing something stupid. Like maybe just how I interpreted it but it seemed he meant like "if you go down I'm not gonna have npcs attack your downed character and kill them." Like I assume you'd still have to make death saves and stuff like that.
@@DJ.The.Tiger25 Yeah, I also interpret it as “I’ll kill you without you making saving throws” which is petty and kinda toxic
I dont think this guy had a group- I think he was babysitting.
2:11:30 While you make a good point, I think the angry GM here is going “I don’t care what your other table did, I’m not going to use the same ruling.”
Edit: XD I shouldve waited a minute!
I think with rule 2 it was already a situation where the players were wanting harder fights then complaining if their characters were killed/knocked unconscious and thus they had to wait for the fight to finish at minimum to join again
the more we get through this list the more i think this is one abused GM
Look I am new to DnD, but even i could understand most of these rules. Most of them are just "Don't be a d-bag" rules. Ok some of them are kinda over the top, but I suspect that it is because these people tried to use them in some unnatural ways and the DM had to put a stop to them, because they could be abusing them. So yeah I feel for the DM. My advice: just don't play with these guys.
Yeah it's a mix between reasonable rules made by a very, very tired GM.
But on the other hand some of these rules are insane, contradictory and openly hostile and yeah, this guy should just not play with these people anymore, and the GM needs to take a long, lomg break before playing with anyone again.
Eh I think everyone is the asshole here. The players were trash yes but the dm clearly isn't good either
From what I have heard this DM, plays with stoners and drunks that have broken actual things in their house refused to pay for them show constant disinterest in the game and when they do it with complaints distrust and misusing of rules. This DM doesn’t need to make rules he needs to get into fights with these people these are fighting words, bro has been disrespected too much.
My question becomes at that point, why did he come back at all. I understand it can be hard to find a group, but with online options now it seems he should be able to find a new group better than the people wbo inspired these rules.
@@Larper64- probably because they have social anxiety and this is the only group they know
(I've been there)
@@Larper64 he didn't come back. He did a hiatus, they begged him to come back, and these 44 rules are his conditions for returning. Per the actual reddit post
@@robinmohamedally7587 Yeah at that point just ignore them and find better people. Block them or do somthing to keep them away (not to hard with tresspasing and restraining orders) going out like this makes you a DM automaticly no matter if you were treated like shit.
For rule 13, if your late with not good reason or no snacks then there should be consequences.
If you think a minute is too short to decide what you going to do on your turn, remember that your character probably has seconds.
I do half agree this is a game so it makes sense that the players don't have to think at the speed of the in world combat but I do think people forget that DnD combat is actually pretty fast and that the PCs don't have much more then like 6 seconds to decide what to do.
@@matijasostojic4288Neither do they have the ability to read each other’s minds and seamlessly coordinate themselves in combat on the fly.
@@Lobsterwithinternet That's why I said half agree but still, let's atleast try to remember that we don't actually have like 5 minutes to decide what to do (Rolls not included).
With rule 2, one of my DMs has that rule as a condition of him DMing. It makes his games very intense. Our group is down for it, but I know not everyone is.
Part of the fun of hard encounters is that death is a real risk, so winning the encounter with no casualties is so much sweeter, and loosing someone is so much more dramatic. The DM shouldn't be deliberately trying to kill the party, but if a pc death happens that's fine.
If the player isn't ready for the pcs story to end, give the party a chance to revive them.
Without the possibility of death and failure I lose interest in running and playing the game.
Yaeh, honestly when he was commenting on the rule and said that PC death should have player consent in order to happen....i just wanted to puke and stopped watching the video entirely. I'd NEVER DM for a group Who just wants their hands to held for the whole adventure and also demand to have plot armor...yuck
@@gianlucaguidotto8920 I'm like...
That... That isn't a GAME ANYMORE 🤣
If it's just roleplaying at a table and writing fan fiction you can DO THAT 😅
Shit there are even narrative based systems for those kinds of games
Why butcher D&D into something it isn't?
Why say "I love this game" then ignore half the rules ? 😅
@@gianlucaguidotto8920 That was my response as well. Death happens as part of the game, that's what makes it tense at all, without it, what the heck are you even doing?
I think this video has the fairest take about the DM rules. Everyone is so quick to bash the DM without considering what kind of players inspired those rules
My old group was awful about ordering food so I relate to 30. I was one of the few people who would either eat dinner beforehand or grab food on the way over to eat immediately once there and then be ready to play, but most people not only would show up incredibly late(I'm talking two to three hours), but as soon as they walked in the door they were ordering food or running back out as a group to go get food and bring it back, which just held the game up even worse. And I lived nearly an hour away and couldn't stay until the usual 2-3 in the morning because I had to get a few hours of sleep in before I got up at 6 for work.
Did I mention I was the voice of reason? Imagine the Voice of Reason leaves at midnight and in the next two hours you F- it up so bad that when she comes back you have the gall to say "So we did something stupid, wish you were here to stop us."
Well if you ate in a timely manner and arrived in a timely manner maybe things would be different.
For real!! Sometimes, as a player who has ADHD and arrives late (like 15 min max) I'll order food for EVERYONE because I feel bad. And I'll let them know about being late/food!
I'm taking DM side on this.
Change those players mate. They don't deserve you.
I really appreciate that you kept it constructive, it's nice to have a way to implement rules that people want in a smart and better way
Incorrect, I can never have enough dice. My friend made me wooden dice for my birthday and I love them
Re: rule 3:I have had a 3+ hour game against a mini boss who was a freaking mind flayer. I did not roll over a 5 (on a d20) the entire game, where I was the only intelligence based character. It happens. I just relied on buffs and saving throws
Business calls, texts, emails, etc. during your time off is so annoying. That happened to my son when we took a short trip in March.
Thank you for leaving this up! It's always interesting when toxic people claim someone else is toxic for standing up for themselves.
My favorite intimidation roll I've ever made was playing a one shot auditioning to be apart of a summoner class (kickerstarter extension) streamed game I was a halfling summoner and we just got done being ambushed where there was one surviving bandit we want info and he said nothing but gibberish I said "look bud we can do this easy way or the hard way" as I use my summoner points to conjure a large snake roll well and the bandit proceeds to soil him self.... loved the moment
My favorite intimidation roll was using Leomund's Tiny hut to cut a captured cultist's connection to their patron, then using Major Illusion like an involuntary VR headset to convince the guy that we'd planeshifted them to the shadowfell and I was about to bargain him off to a spider monstrocity.
I was partway through signing the 'deal' with the (illusionary) creature when he gave up. The deal in question? That in exchange for the secrets in the cultist's brain, the creature could do whatever it wanted with the rest of the body.
I am not certain how bad this group was, but apparently there was an incident involving an owl.
he start reading at 7:34 btw
THANK YOU for pointing out that this whole post smells of toxicity on both sides. I've played with groups where shit started to feel like this as a DM and it's usually problem players with a DM who's bad at communication that leads to these horror stories. It's rarely ever on one party unless someone is being stupidly unreasonable (like if someone starts sexually harassing people, that is clearly just a bad apple.)
I feel like this was real because, though still stern af, you can see the rage levels calm ever so slightly the further along the list got.
~_~
Just wanted to say, that you made my day today. I had a terrible time until I saw that your livestream was up and now I am so much better. Thank you so much :-)
So happy to hear that!
Also keep in mind that all of this was posted by one of the potentially rude players to make him look bad and not the DM himself. That seems a bit messed up if you ask me.
No offense but that play group sounds awful to deal with and that DM is a saint for even dealing with their nonsense. Rule 13/14 says a LOT if you have to make it that explicit. These rules didn’t come out of thin air, they came out because the group is toxic af. These consequence are extreme because the group is so bad that they’re late all the time
The fact there is a dickhead in this comment section siding with the straight up bullies of players is disgusting
And that rules are the reason why i stopped dm dnd.
I think i have experienced like 30 of the scenarios in there
1:21:00 Yeah, this was definitely an endpoint, not something he threw out there early on just to be a dick. This is a key example of why there needs to be communication not only between the players but with the DM as well, and that is a two-way street. You're supposed to be there to have fun but there does need to be a little discipline insofar as basic etiquette and gameplay are concerned, and if people just aren't there to play and the game is suffering as a result, it can easily turn into a shitstorm. This strikes me as a group that has been together for at least a little while and the DM, trying not to cause problems, just let things happen until he needed a break; then, when he comes back, he starts stressing over all the problems with the players and just blows up over it. This was very much an angry post, not a logical one, even though there are some very good points in it.
One thing I do have to mention is the need to be aware of mental health issues or other things going on outside the game, as these can have a significant effect on gameplay as well as the general well-being and entertainment of the group as a whole. That includes the DM as well. He obviously took a break from this and came back to write these rules, so it seems that he was legit affected just as well. And while some people might not be as assertive and won't talk as much or interact as much for whatever reason, or maybe they can't effectively communicate issues they might be having, I think people need to at least have some level of awareness even just to the point of checking on their fellow players and DM from time to time. A simple "how are you doing today" could be enough, but also consider your dnd group could be your support network.
So while some of the rules are a bit out there, if not in the rules themselves then in how they're enforced or just how they're worded, I do agree that having some rules and boundaries as well as at least a modicum of communication and awareness can go a long way to making a game and group that much better. And you have to have a little sympathy or understanding because life should always come first. That's how it typically is in the forum RP communities, and that's how it should be in dnd as well. But also, if you're there to play a game, play the game in the best way that you can and try to be fair to everyone, not just yourself.
Also, dunno who needs to hear this, but you're amazing and you totally slay.
I feel like number 2 was meant to be, if you die in middle of combat you can't just immediately introduce your new character and start blasting (or play their identical twin with the same sheet).
Edit - I once played with a guy who just changed the first letter of his character name after death. He was scarily attached to that character.
Number 19, a couple of sessions ago I literally said, 'player' is very worried about this, but 'character' wouldn't be, so he eats all the food that the completely innocent old lady offers him.
VLDL has a D&D logic series that has that exact player; a dwarf wizard with infinite brothers. It is my biggest pet peeve for players to pull something like that between campaigns.
@@rob.3143 we all thought he was just doing a bit at first. But nope exact same character except the one letter of his name
@@rob.3143oh no! My identical twin brother Zalgrim! Dead, as I live and breathe! I, Valgrim the great, swear to avenge thee!
Wizard: "Hey guys, sorry im alte just forgot to check the time" //dies from 1d2 late damage
58:10 yeah we're here to read, but more importantly to read with you. I appreciate the pauses where you speak with chat and get emotional. No need to rush.
Personally I do not agree the Duke's point of avoiding character deaths. I enjoy tough fights where the threat of death/defeat is there.
So, I do not enjoy a DM making it so that you can not die unless you specifically say so. If a player makes a tactical blunder or gets full of themselves feeling that they are invincible, I feel that the DM has the right to punish them.
I will say, if you tell your players at the start that they should expect they’re characters to die, then that’s also fine for them to just die in combat. At that point they’ve been warned and should be prepared to lose people
Honestly it sounds like this DM and their players just have absolutely no trust in each other, which is not a good thing for a group and hopefully they solved that or broke up. At that point you’re not playing together, you’re playing against or in spite of each other
From the rules alone….sounds like the worst group of humans attended this DM’s group💀🤷♀️
I don’t blame this dm for laying down the law, seems fair to me🤷♀️
Rule 5: I actually agree with. "I persuade the guard", "what do you persuade them to do exactly?". I don't mind players who are third person the entire time, but I'd at least like to know what they're intending, plus it also lets me understand how much the player understands what is going on so I can give extra info or check in if they think this NPC is someone else.
Do you have the same expectations for history checks of the palyer being able to remember any in game lore they have heard in the past, or have them do some quick cardio if they do an athletics check to do something? Characters, especially those with high stats are likely to have a better understanding than the players themselves would have in those same situations. Requiring a player to have to replicate social skills in order for them to work is comparable to doing the same for other skills. If you think it would be absurd to require a player to do a standing cartwheel everytime they do an acrobatics check or provide a mathematical proof for thermodynamics in order to use arcana to recognize a spell, then it would be equally absurd to require a person who may lack real social skills to act out persuading someone, or a meek person intimidating someone.
@@Larper64- YES, I would have the same expectations.
Tell me *specifically* what you want to know.
Otherwise, I could end up telling you something entirely irrelevant.
And you end up upset, and blame me as the DM.
YOU are playing; YOU are the only person who can tell me what YOU need to know
@@Larper64 sounds like a pretty lazy and worthless player, tbqh. "YOU baby me! I am a special person, because my mommy told me so! YOU do everything FOR me! I just have to show up! Now wipe my bottom! WWAHHHH!"
@@robinmohamedally7587
Gotcha you want to break down a door using your character's strength, I expect you to deadlift 400 pounds to prove your character is strong enough.
@@Larper64 You're being obtuse on purpose. Its a SOCIAL game about social encounters and social play. Also, he isnt asking for super crazy voice acting or anything super clever, just asking how hes persuading him. Blackmail, intimidate, promising a favor, bribe? Lots of options with lots of potential implications that honestly the dm should know, and it what makes the game half as fun as it is.
Honestly, I WOULD ask the same for a strength check. If my fighter tells me hes gonna use strength to break down the door, I WILL ask him how he does it. Using his greatsword to chop through the wood, or smashing the hinges his armored foot? At worst it only adds a bit of fun character, at best it ACTUALLY changes the outcome. (the wood could be magically enchanted, for example but not the hinges.)
Yes, you can't expect everyone to voice-act, I don't at all. But players should input some amount of active choice in their decisions, to not JUST roll for what stat is appropriate. Its just a little bit of engagement is all I'm asking, 99% of players can do that.
honestly from the vibes of this, after listening to all the rules, this is a dm who loves the game, who used to love dm-ing, but has been so worn down and burnt out by these players that they can’t take it any more, and it made them lose passion for the game. clearly there has been either very little communication happening or the players have been so dismissive of the dm setting boundaries that the dm’s communication has been ignored.
I'm not giving my players consent to die. If they fail their death saving throws and don't have any way to save their character, they're dying.
I'm glad I saw the comment about this DM being subjected to bad behaviour from the group, because this very much comes across as a "you've made the experience of DM'ing horrible for me, no matter how many times I try to tell you not to do it, so here you go, Draconian DM era starts now"
Rule #19: Instead of Vicious Mockery, I would compare it more to getting SAN-damage for trying to tap into information from a higher dimensional plane🙂
At 26min. You should make the comedy sketch on what you think prompted the rule to be made. What outrageous things did this group do that caused such crazy rules to be made?
From what I have seen this is a DM who has been pushed again ande again and finally snapped
18 and 19: Man I kind of get where these are coming from. The players probably would just keep trying a skill check over and over and over again, everyone taking a turn at it which is obnoxious. So having the Players make a Plan about their player actions is what they should be doing, I would not at all call this Meta gaming since its character planning. 19 though, I think is cause they have a Characters meeting a monster or something for the First Time and the Players use the Metadetails(Stat blocks, vulnerabilities ect) to deal with it, or a character not present for an event and not having met back with the group suddenly is in the perfect place to act upon that information.
They're Similar but they are not even close to the same thing. Frankly I encourage player planning, so long as it doesn't take too long, and it should be a TEAM event even if only one person rolls for a skill check(Also this is why the Assist/Help action exists.)
Hey if you're going to turn these rules into a skit. Why not make it easier on yourself by making it a small series of videos covering 11 rules each. Given how the rules slowly sound angrier and angrier. Perhaps each episode has you looking more disheveled and beaten up by an abusive player group that are taking advantage of you.
Glad that my first 2 superchat were for you
THANK YOU. I'm a bit of a dnd player newbie... but to me, most seem like a very tired DM who's occasionally overcompensated ruke-wise to the actions of players.
*rule-wise
2: I have the rule it's discussed BEFORE the game/campaign starts. If I've stated CLEAR and LOUD a player can die you agree or don't agree. If you don't it's not the campaingn for you.
Example: If your lev 1 character charges a dragon you WILL fry. No I won't warn the player. There is no protection for morons without comon sense. No mollycoddeling people trying out malicious incompetence. It needs to be understood, death is an option but a player won't be "hit by a flowerpot" and die. It's not me setting unsolvable dead traps. And there are options like chips for reroles, delayed death, a last heroic deed... I know groups were the players say we fail and die with joy and confidence - we don't want reroles.
Generally, most of these rules should've been discussed in a session zero.
Regarding rule 18, there are checks that every character can choose to make if they are present in the scene such as perception or insight. As to specific actions like persuasion, if multiple players want to do them at the same time I try and pick the second best role; 12, 14, 16, 12 means picking the 14. If they do it one after the other, because the first failed, I set a higher DC and/or ask the second player to come up with a different method.
To take the guard example out of the lifestream, first character tries to persuade them by getting all chummy and friendly with the guard but fails the roll. The second PC tries a persuasion roll but rather than going smooth talker, they offer the guard 3 silver pieces to let them pass.
Also, using the same example, there are other ways to get past the guard. If those two persuasions fail, the fighter or barbarian can try to intimidate the guard in letting them pass. Same end result, different method. But again, I'd set a higher DC and at a certain point, if they failed too many times for my liking, I simply explain to my players that they've tried everything to get past this guard and failed to do so and to find another way.
My dm also makes us roleplay our intimidation/persuasion checks but she's way more chill about it, she never punishes people who don't know what to say and sometimes gives them ideas on what they could say if they ask for help, and like that one chatter said, if we roleplay it well she lets us roll with advantage. We always talk and then roll afterward, but if we fail she always comes up with good reasons why the act didn't work in the moment, it's a pretty great system
The Barbarian in my group took like 15 minutes for one of his turn.... Bro just rage and hit twice
I'm genuinely baffled and concerned that 15 & 16 had to be put down in writing.
I've been at tables where DnD was mostly an excuse to get drunk (and I have been guilty of this) so I can see how it could happen that way.
Many of those rules makes total sense, you know the times that my players just roll , and i ask why you roll? Because im persuasive, dude this its not a videogame
I'm not gonna act ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'll try to explain what happens/what the goal is but I'm not fkin acting lol
@@JenIsHungry that's fine, that was never the point. Just don't say "21. Did i do it?" at least don't be a lazyass and put SOME sort of effort into it. "I try to convince him to ___-__", like you said. NO one wants to play with a boring lazyass
glad you did this, xp to level 3 only made it like 16 in
For the sketches, you could do it from both sides. Like in Clue, player perspective, dm perspective, real perspective.
I feel like rule 5 could be super fun with some tweaks
No RP Disadvantage (your character is looking at them)
Describe what you do Normal roll (you do what you did)
If RP convinces DM or logical works for the character Advantage (you are using intelligence to inform your RP or are just that convincing)
This way you reward good RP if the player calls something that was established like a NPCs fear of bugs to intimate them they should be rewarded
Bring a second character sheet doesn't necessarily mean the new character will just magically appear to jump in the same round as the previous character dies.
If the players play badly in combat and they can't handle their characters dying and say "I do not consent to dying" then there are no meaningful rules or stakes and the player is playing the wrong game.
This guy genuinely said a player should decide when and how their character dies then what is the challenge that's so incredibly dumb its invincibility
That one minute turn is so fucking reasonable! I'm a martial character and my turns take 15-20 seconds, and our casters take an average of 5 minutes. With 7 players + 1 dungeon master in our group, the two of us who are martials and the one paladin (who takes up a minute average) usually take up to 2 minutes max for the three of us. And everyone else together hogs around 20-30 minutes per turn. So I have to wait a long ass time to get a 20 second turn.
Well I know what my evening entertainment is going to be tonight. Cant wait to give this a watch.
At this point I feel like he was not hurt, but down right violated.
On the other hand, as purveyor of divination wizards I think ban on dovination magic is dumb, although premonition can be annoying, I know
i think the second rule's "twiddle your thumbs" comment wasn't neccesarrily about them not getting to play only that it probably meant your character wouldn't be introduced for a bit since bringing in a new character is easier in towns and populated areas. so twiddling your thumbs may just mean it may take a while for your character to be introduced if you die in a dungeon or in the middle of a forrest.
rule 35 i think is fair but i also dont want the player just sitting there being a nuissance so i would give them an NPC or have him help with combat/moving enemies around
So, with his discussion of how he handles player death reminds me of when my party in Highschool did a Halloween one off campaign, I normally run pretty casual when I DM, lax rules, lower stakes, it's more about the roleplay and story for me, but one of them kept trying to cause trouble with the creepy butler in a manor they were summoned too, and eventually I let them fight him, only to reveal the spoiler that the butler was Death himself (Which I intended to reveal at the end but they pushed me), let's just say that player was glad this was a one off
I think 2 and 3 should be talked about together, cause theyre bitching about wanting harder fights, but whining about rulings and rolls being unfair? Naw, thats a losexlose for any DM
New DM here. I learned to my surprise that people hide their rolls. Why? Rolling dice is the second most exciting thing about D&D. We all show our rolls, even I roll with everyone on the table.
"This just sounds like he's DMing for a group of stoners." This would explain my hard 10s. My 7-9s are mostly hypotheticals, but my hard 10s almost exclusively come from experience (as a player) in a campaign I'm in. There's been several occasions where the campaign has almost died on the spot. We're great friends, but we've learned over time that there's a lot of conversation we should've, but didn't, have in session 0, simply due to different types of people trying to play together.
*Me and my bag that holds bags of dice* I do not have enough dice how dare you.
For #2 I don't believe a DM should go in planning to kill the players unless there is clearly a way for the players to back out. I believe that there should be a discussion with the players but that discussion should happen in the form of the scenario. If they don't walk away when it's right there for them then so be it.
The DM is Rick Sanchez.
1. Pretty sure that was 1 min to tell him what you want to do, not to actually perform the actions
wasnt there a video/stream where he said he was contacted by one of the players? what happened to that, i wasn't able to see it
Kept seeing videos everywhere about this. I’m always devil’s advocating these things, since I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. So I kind of avoided watching them. Anyways... my thoughts:
1.) Know what you’re going to do on your turn.
2.) Harder fights mean you’re more likely to die. We aren’t waiting for you to roll up a new character, so have one ready. And be prepared to wait for an opportune time to join, since you aren’t teleporting in.
3.) Got a problem? Easy solution. Leave. (Entirely context sensitive. Can see this being reasonable.)
4.) Requires more context. This looks like offering players a choice though. You can get more loot, but it’s going to be balanced.
5.) Act stuff out. Do it before you roll. (Actually like before, though I can see either way. DM may change DC & consequences depending on a particularly good/bad idea.)
6.) If you don’t do “side quests,” you don’t do them.
7.) No take backs on movement. (Depends. If it triggers anything, almost always not. Mostly though, seems dependent on group.)
8.) Say what you do before you roll. (For players, absolutely.)
9.) More exhaustion. (Game dependent. Also dependent on how much given in previous games.)
10.) NPCs will act like living people. They will remember what you do. (Just keep track of in and out of character.)
11.) Not everything is a mega dungeon. Stuff takes work.
12.) Playing through travel takes time. We’re not doing it. That way we do more fun stuff. (Game dependent.)
13.) Late without reason halves your hitpoints. (You know... bad rule, but I see where it’s coming from.)
14.) Major consequences if DM determines no good reason not to show up to session. (Bad rule. Should skip the consequences and do a warning system before dropping from game if this is truly an issue.)
15.) You show up too stoned/drunk, I leave.
16.) If we can’t play because people constantly leave table mid-session, I leave.
17.) Guidance, divination, owls, stupid spells. All banned. (Honestly, you say limiting players, but I get this. All that stuff is pretty much dependent on how much DM is letting you get away with. Moment DM has enough of free advantage every turn, Hootsy gets swat by a readied action. Should probably just tell players NPCs are going to start being smart instead of blanket banning the cheese though.)
18.) 1 chance at skill checks. (Should depend on context of the check.)
19.) Metagaming damages your character. (Lol, go for it. The forbidden knowledge.)
20.) Rules lawyer other players, not me. (Yeah, dislike this one. Though there are wrong and right ways to do it.)
21.) It looks like you lie about your roles.
22.) Instant death traps are now a thing. (Yeah, I dislike this. Seems like DM is just angry.)
23.) Magic items are rare. (Setting dependent.)
24.) No random encounters. (Game dependent.)
25.) Don’t care about Reddit rulings. (Valid)
26.) Don’t care about how your friends’ tables do things. (Valid)
27.) Don’t tell me other players don’t like something. (Valid. Group dependent.)
28.) When the game starts, the game starts, regardless of any discussions that began while waiting. (Fair)
29.) Don’t downplay my attempt to get the game going. I put a lot of work into this.
30.) Don’t randomly order food and don’t make a mess.
31.) You wreck my stuff, you pay for it.
32.) I’m the DM. I’m the judge.
33.) I’m the DM. I make the world’s rules. Not you, and definitely not anything online.
34.) Everyone gets nerfed. (Need context.)
35.) Don’t bring your sheet, you don’t play. (Fair)
36.) Borrow dice if you need them. (Why did this need to be said?)
37.) DM has a role. Doesn’t always include being nice.
38.) Treat my poorly for something that happened in game, and you’re out. You’re a moron if you can’t separate fiction from reality. (Correct. Entirely. Including the rude part.)
39.) Give me your spell list each day. (Actually think this should be more commonly a thing. Issue isn’t trust. It’s that DM already has crap ton to keep track of.)
40.) Mark off spell slots or feel the wrath of GOD. (Lol, who hurt this DM? But yeah, mark off spell slots.)
41.) You break stuff, you buy the replacement or can’t play until you do.
42.) Don’t like the music, bring a better playlist or stfu. (You can feel the tension this group has built up.)
43.) Don’t care if you don’t like the rulings.
44.) I mean it.
Lol, that took a while. End thoughts, DM seems like he really wants to DM. Hope he gets a group that isn’t crap, whether it’s the one he had (maybe minus a few players) or another one.
Listening to this while i'm at work and while i have my opinions about the rules, i, as a vod watcher, just want to say thanks to the people who supported the channel cos listening to duke's excitement and seeing your generosity is so uplifting