MY PLAYERS WON'T STOP SAY (MATT MERCER DOES THIS) rant with a question? [Archive]

Throne12

2017-12-03, 10:30 PM

So I allow one of my players play Matt Mercer 's gunslinger. The gunslinger fired all his shot and had to reload. I told him it would take a action to reload. He said that how it works you can spend one of your attacks (not attack action but a attack.) Then another play jumps in and said the same thing. This last for a couple of mins before I Saud what ever and let finished this fight. We had 30 mins left for the night and I was passed so I just hand waved the hole fight. Because the hole gunslinger thing and my ******* powergamer rules Lawyer player was passed because last game he got druncked and abducted and is stuff was licked up in a room with arcane lock on it.

He calls me out on any rule he thinks is wrong mixing rule with Matt Mercer 's house rules. He's the biggest power games you have ever seen. And gets all pissy if I do anything to this Mary Sue ******* Characters. He say oh your a new DM.

I used to be a Critical role fan but my group has made me haste it.

So the question was how does the reloads work for Percy?

Lodestar

2017-12-03, 10:33 PM

I don't have a PDF around at tne moment (on mobile), but I recall it being an action to reload firearms, but at a certain level you get to instead use a bonus action to reload.

jitzul

2017-12-03, 10:35 PM

it says on the gunslinger pdf under the reload proporty it takes 1 attack or action to reload.

Varlon

2017-12-03, 10:55 PM

Jerrykhor

2017-12-03, 10:57 PM

I think you have issues.

Finney

2017-12-03, 11:04 PM

So the question was how does the reloads work for Percy?

The more important question is: how do you think it should work?

Be firm (and fair) with your players, which is a polite way of saying don't let them bully or shout you down. When you need to interpret or revise a rule, ask for their input and invite a discussion - then make a ruling. Reasonable people can generally reach an agreement that is fair to everyone involved.

Keep in mind that the Gunslinger shares a lot of similarities with the material published in the Unearthed Arcana - it is not official and may or may not need to be tweaked based on how it impacts your game. This is often the case with homebrew material.

Throne12

2017-12-03, 11:15 PM

I think you have issues.

Thank you and god bless your soul.

mephnick

2017-12-03, 11:15 PM

"I'm not Matt Mercer and you aren't being paid to perform for subscribers. Please respect my rulings."

The End

suplee215

2017-12-03, 11:29 PM

While I do think the player might be a bit of a problem for the reloading issue they are right. The PDF states that reloading costs an action OR an attack. This isn't a case of Percy being allowed to do it because of Matt's more story focus dm style but actually in the text. That said if you think they are power gaming remember that ultimately you are in charge and make the rules. I suggest talking out of game to them about the issues on all sides and also about why you are making the rulings you are making.

Spore

2017-12-03, 11:40 PM

I realize he is the DM. But there is nothing "rules-lawyer" about wanting the DM to play by the written rules. D&D 5 has enough leeway for the DM to create tension or make encounters more challenging. You usually should start with everything you can control as the DM and let the players play by the rules.

To make a fight more challenging you can have more enemies show up, you can have the villain equip them better or lay an ambush when it makes sense from what the minions know ingame. And then you reward them for overcoming your increased odds. You however do not try to interfere with the rules-side of player characters. Other than making sure they play by the rules and shut down crushing interpretations of the rules - things like wish-loops or for me, scry and die scenarios.

Throne12

2017-12-03, 11:41 PM

You sure sound like a new DM. Maybe you should make sure you understand the characters your players are playing, or at least have the text available so that you can resolve rules issues by looking it up? Rather than attempting to nerf their character on the spot because of your lack of understanding, getting mad, rushing to end the session, and then coming and complaining to the internet about it.

I wasn't trying to nerf players. I just didnt know the ruling on the firearm at the time. But still let him used a attack to reload like he wanted to. My Critical Role fan players which are half of my group wants to
1. Cast spells that are 2nd level or first level as a action and bonus action just like Matt Mercer let's his group does.
2. They want to drink potions as a bonus action. When in the book it say it a action to use a potion.
3. A player is playing a insane lizardman that's a hexblade barbarian and his warlock Patron is Chaulu switching his hexblade Extended spell list with the great old one. Then when I asked why not just play a goo lock he said because they suck as a bladelock and wanted to use his Charisma as his attacking stat. He trys to cast spells while raging. He nevers wants to start at level 1 and will not leave me alone untell I say ok we start at level 3.

Yes I did rushed the end because everyone had already clocked out of the game by then. And a few players had to leave s pin anyways. So Excuse me for not shoving something they didn't enjoy down their throat. And yes I did come to the internet to complain isn't that what the internet is for?

I'm not Matt Mercer and I'm always compared to him. I wanted to DM because I wanted to have fun craft a story with a group. But I'm going home ticked off after every session. I ask at the end of every session " Questions comments, concerns, thoughts. Was there anything you really liked or didn't like." They always answer with it was good. Yes I'm bitching on the internet because I'm Afraid if I don't it it off my chest now I'll Explode on my players and that's the last think I want to do.

So thank you for your comment and god bless your soul.

Jerrykhor

2017-12-04, 12:52 AM

I wasn't trying to nerf players. I just didnt know the ruling on the firearm at the time. But still let him used a attack to reload like he wanted to. My Critical Role fan players which are half of my group wants to
1. Cast spells that are 2nd level or first level as a action and bonus action just like Matt Mercer let's his group does.
2. They want to drink potions as a bonus action. When in the book it say it a action to use a potion.
3. A player is playing a insane lizardman that's a hexblade barbarian and his warlock Patron is Chaulu switching his hexblade Extended spell list with the great old one. Then when I asked why not just play a goo lock he said because they suck as a bladelock and wanted to use his Charisma as his attacking stat. He trys to cast spells while raging. He nevers wants to start at level 1 and will not leave me alone untell I say ok we start at level 3.

Yes I did rushed the end because everyone had already clocked out of the game by then. And a few players had to leave s pin anyways. So Excuse me for not shoving something they didn't enjoy down their throat. And yes I did come to the internet to complain isn't that what the internet is for?

I'm not Matt Mercer and I'm always compared to him. I wanted to DM because I wanted to have fun craft a story with a group. But I'm going home ticked off after every session. I ask at the end of every session " Questions comments, concerns, thoughts. Was there anything you really liked or didn't like." They always answer with it was good. Yes I'm bitching on the internet because I'm Afraid if I don't it it off my chest now I'll Explode on my players and that's the last think I want to do.

So thank you for your comment and god bless your soul.

Then just make it clear to them that your game, your rules. Not Matt Mercer's or anyone else's.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but if you want to know who is right in an argument, the first thing to do is fact check, not go online and rant.

krugaan

2017-12-04, 12:56 AM

Then just make it clear to them that your game, your rules. Not Matt Mercer's or anyone else's.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but if you want to know who is right in an argument, the first thing to do is fact check, not go online and rant.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Then we wouldn't have this entertaining story or easy validation.

Always consult the internet first.

Unless your story sucks. Then, you know ... google.

Alerad

2017-12-04, 12:57 AM

1. Ask the player how the feature works. It's his character, so it's not really your job to know how all features on all classes work. That applies to any player, not just the Gunslinger. I often do it for spells, I'm not going to memorize all 100 pages on the PHB spell section, and the Elemental Evil, and Xanathar's.

2. Does it feel OP?

2-Yes. Tell the player that feature A. feels too OP and you will have to nerf it. Yes, that includes printed rules and yes, DM-s do it all the time. If a certain rules doesn't work for your table, you can change it. Discuss changes with affected players and explain why they are necessary.

2-No. Then don't change anything.

LeonBH

2017-12-04, 01:07 AM

I wanted to DM because I wanted to have fun craft a story with a group. But I'm going home ticked off after every session.

This is a HUGE problem. Something is VERY wrong.

No game is better than a bad game. You are not getting anything from D&D other than your own enjoyment. You are not getting paid to run it, you are not earning favors for it. You do it for you.

When it stops becoming fun, then you have to stop running the game.

If you spent those 3-4 hours instead lazing around watching Netflix, went on a date, read a book, or ate at a restaurant, you would have had a significantly better time.

Running a game you are not enjoying is your friends earning your bad will. If you did not run a game for them, they would not be earning your bad will.

You have to stop running the game.

Captain Panda

2017-12-04, 01:07 AM

He was correct in his objection, that is what the rule says. It's hardly overpowered.

I can empathize with the feeling that it's annoying when a player joins a game expecting you to DM like Matt Mercer on Critical Role (only Matt Mercer can do that, and only with highly skilled voice actors to work with), but... you're using homebrew -he- wrote. It makes some sense for players to extrapolate from that that other things might be the same as well. Just tell them that you will be going by the book's rules with the exception of the class features outlined in the gunslinger subclass.

I'm guessing based on your post that you're young, not just new, so I'd also say calm down and just keep practicing. It'll get easier with time. The solution to a problem is rarely yelling about it to strangers, though.

Geodude6

2017-12-04, 01:17 AM

"But Matt Mercer does X!"

"Well, I'm not Matt Mercer."

Talamare

2017-12-04, 01:18 AM

If you're going to object to how a HOME BREW works...

Then you need to provide the home brew information, and even then its up to the DM to allow it or play it how he wants... Regardless of what the HOME BREW file says

ATHATH

2017-12-04, 01:21 AM

It sounds like both you and your group have... "flaws".

Maybe you could get some of your group members on here so that we can hear their side(s) of the story?

... You might want to change the thread title first, though.

Temperjoke

2017-12-04, 01:30 AM

Your best answer is "Go have Matt Mercer DM your campaign if you want to play by his rules."

One thing that your players don't seem to understand is that the game that they're playing in Critical Role is based on the Tal'Dorei Campaign, which includes feats that are not part of the core 5e. This is what allows them to do the two spells cast in a turn.

Spelldriver
Prerequisite: Character level 8th or higher
Through intense focus, training, and dedication, you’ve
harnessed the techniques of rapid spellcasting. You are
no longer limited to only one non-cantrip spell per turn.
However, should you cast two or more spells in a single
turn, only one of them can be of 3rd level or higher.

They omit details like that during the game because they've been playing together in this campaign a long time, it's second nature to them now, so it's easy to think that it's just a special ruling when there's actually a mechanic for it.

Aside from these issues, it sounds as if there are other things at play in your game. You are not familiar with the classes your players have chosen to play, which makes you unprepared for this sort of problem during the game. You've got players who only half understand what's going on in the mechanics of the game, because it seems they're basing their knowledge on a different game setting than you are. You've also got players who want to lawyer and argue, and you seem to want them to immediate kowtow to what you want, even if they're actually right.

Frankly, I think you guys need to have some time out of game to discuss just what you all want out of this, how this constant comparison to a different DM is making you feel, and establish some ground rules.

McNinja

2017-12-04, 01:46 AM

First, I know you were probably angry when you wrote the thread title and OP, but dear god. You need to run that stuff through spellcheck first dude. Even google has a built in dictionary.

Second, if you aren't having fun, stop DMing.

Third, if the player says that the ability works a specific way, ask to see the book with the gunslinger rules, and make a judgement based off that. You're the DM.

Coffee_Dragon

2017-12-04, 01:46 AM

The twist: Throne12 is in fact Matt Mercer.

Occasional Sage

2017-12-04, 01:55 AM

The twist: Throne12 is in fact Matt Mercer.

I want so badly for this to be true.

Hyde

2017-12-04, 01:59 AM

I want so badly for this to be true.

I would also accept Griffin McElroy.

Metahuman1

2017-12-04, 02:10 AM

I'll be honest dude. Your blowing off steam sounds a LOT like a couple of early DM's I had who had no problem,

Making 20th level NPC's come around and beat up on my characters and then make them beg forgiveness afterword's, and made me role play out the entire elaborate process (My crime? In an OA game, a bunch of people using Roof Tops, All black garments with face coverings, dart and net weapons, shuriken, tricked out climbing gear and kusari-gama's, to attempt to assassinate a royal and her 1 lone body guard that we were trying to come to the rescue of, and my character called them Ninja's, which was an offense to the ultra highly important 20th level combatant noble member of the court in charge of the assassination attempt. Never mind that he's trying to off the heir to the throne, that wasn't a relevant detail. )

Sundered a samurai (The social title.) characters swords in a deliberately low wealth campaign. Knowing full well all my ability's were built around using the damn things,

Had an NPC lone me swords from the wrong clan just so every freaking body I encountered could accost me with impunity now on the grounds I was "Obviously a thief cause your carrying around swords from the wrong clan.",

Allow the girl he desperately wanted to get in the pants of to murder my character with no negative consequences on the grounds that he's only there to provide back drop, but insist when one of my characters quite reasonably goes to off her after being attacked by her that it's ok for him to intervene as a DM to keep the PC's from in party fighting,

No problems with this sort of stuff,

But,

Were adamantly against Tome of Battle for being Uberbroken Book of Anime Fighting that no one should ever use ever cause it's the worst thing in 3.5.

Banned the Mage Slayer feats.

Made it a point if you built a mounted character to always kill the mount before you came up on your first turn no matter what so you couldn't use it.

Banned Monks.

The fact that this immediately comes to mind is something that honestly bodes poorly for your position on this one.

Corsair14

2017-12-04, 08:02 AM

The Cats

2017-12-04, 08:22 AM

No clue who Matt Mercer is but you are the DM, your word is the rules over and above anything written in the books. The game rules are suggested rules for a complete game and it is your role as DM to arbitrate and pick and choose which you want to follow. DM's rule is law no matter what the rules say.

See the post directly above yours for why that's not necessarily the healthiest attitude a DM can have.

The DM can choose which rules to follow, but the DM is not the only person playing the game. If the players disagree, declaring "My game my rules take a hike if you don't like it" can result in one guy sitting at a table by himself. As it should.

KorvinStarmast

2017-12-04, 08:49 AM

"I'm not Matt Mercer and you aren't being paid to perform for subscribers. Please respect my rulings." The End Yeah. (Also, take a look at the source material and figure out how it works in your campaign).

When it stops becoming fun, then you have to stop running the game. Bad gaming is not better than no gaming. Fair point made here.

"But Matt Mercer does X!"
"Well, I'm not Matt Mercer." Yeah, each table is sovereign.

Third, if the player says that the ability works a specific way, ask to see the book with the gunslinger rules, and make a judgement based off that. You're the DM. Also this.

SirGraystone

2017-12-04, 08:52 AM

I'm not a new DM, i have been playing on and off for 30 years now. And the things power gamer/rules lawyers will do still annoy me. Mostly because they slow down the game.

You are the DM, so it's your game, you do have to be fair but you are the judge of what rules your game follow. You get to pick what homebrew stuff is added to the game (and yes Matt Mercer gunslinger class is homebrew not an official Wizards product)

Now about the reloading gun, i'm pretty sure it's only a small part in the OP frustration. The last drop of an recurring problem that caused him to vent in the forum.

What I usually try to do with rules lawyer is tell them, that I'm ruling it my way now and we can talk about it after the game, so we can keep the story going.

But my biggest red flag is "He say oh your a new DM.", like that mean your opinion is less important then his. DMing can be fun but it's also a lot of works, if you come out angry after most sessions and you have no fun anymore, it may be a sign that one of you have to go, and I don't think its you.

Throne12

2017-12-04, 08:52 AM

Thank you all for y'all comments. Last night I was Angry and I just had to get it off my chest and I didn't want to do that to my players. The firearm reload was just a trigger that started one of my players arguing with me again.

My problem is with one of my players. He will argue on any rule he doesn't like. Right now he's playing a lizardman that was once a elf. He's a hexblade barbarian (which I didn't know he took levels in barbarian) his parton is Chaulu switching some of the hexblade spell with goo lock spells.
Some of the Arguments we had were about the party kept going and didn't take a long rest for 3 days after day 2 I called for a con check if they failed they get 1 level of Exhaustion. He didn't like this and said I can stay up 2 days straight and be Perfectly fine. Another time I had a player cast moon beam then tryed to cast healing word. I said you can't cast 2 spells first level or higher on the same turn. He jumped in and said why not let her it want Matt does. I said it the rule in the book. He then said back it not like she's casting another damaging spell. I Rebuttal with I'm using the rules in the book. Then another time I told them that they can't sleep in heavy or med armor. He had to jump in about sleeping in armor and something about larp. Then he go off about what happens if they get attacked at night. They'll have crap AC and that not fair. Then last night he just started running throught the dungeon leaving the party behind. A group of guards come down the stairs which he is about 40 ft from leaving the party split up the rogue fighting a film by himself the gunslinger fighting 5 tiny servants refluffed to tiny Construct spiders. Then the npc arcane archer and the sorcerer stuck in a room then the monk licked in a different room. So the guard come down and he say to me why rant they running from me the scary lizardman that when they were kidnapping him his weapon kill one of them. I told him it there trained guards and your in there place and they have numbers why would they run. Then 2 rounds later all but one were dead and the one that left turns and runs back up Stairs. He say what why do they always get away. This got to me and I said what always get away anytime some one ttys to run you guy hunt them down and kill them no one has ever gotten away. He get upset when a monster try or get him in a grapple or anything that effects his character other then damage. He complains if he out of character thinks a Nov is lying to me. But never ask for a insight check. He complains if I throw anything ar then that has any Resistance or immunity. I one had a pack or werewolf follow them. This pack was 6 with one alpha. The alpha was the only one that had Resistance the other ones didn't. He was mad that I throw werewolf at them at level 4 but they easily killed them.

Falcon X

2017-12-04, 08:55 AM

I empathize with OP so much.
At least one of my players is always referring to Matt Mercer and the way he does things, and while I listen and even incorporate some things into my game, I hate always being compared to that guy.
Also, my homebrew isn’t MM homebrew, and they get angry when I don’t conform.

However, the one time we let MMFanboy DM I took full of vantage of the “Cantrips as bonus actions homebrew Rule”
It wasn’t pretty....

Skyblaze

2017-12-04, 09:01 AM

From what I have read, it seems like your PCs just have a combination of too much metagaming (complaining about enemies having resistance, saying that he can totally stay up for two days and be fine, sleeping in armor -which XGTe has rules for that now)) and not enough respect for you as a DM.

This is a game. It doesn't matter if out of game he can stay up for two days and be fine, this is a game, there are rules. If you're fine without sleeping for two days, pass your constitution check. You want to sleep in heavy armor? You'll get the disadvantages of doing so (and the advantages of doing so by having a bigger AC if you're attacked) regardless of how that players cardboard armor for LARPing is perfectly fine to sleep in.

Anytime your players level up, you should ask for their character sheets or at the very least what they took. You need to know these things so you can balance your game properly.

Finally, as everyone else has said, this is your game, your ruling. It doesn't matter what Mercer does. If they don't like it, they can leave.

Gtdead

2017-12-04, 09:06 AM

I had a similar issue with my dm. He would change rules randomly, like giving ranged characters advantage when attacking prone targets, or would allow ready action before initiative whenever he felt like and the reason was because he was seeking quick resolution to combat encounters that he put there and never gave us the chance to flee or avoid it.

When you allow something, either give specific rulings about how it should work from the beginning, or don't allow it. Whenever you make changes on the fly about things that are well documented, you create a problem. And this is a big one, no one wants to spend a turn doing nothing, especially when you obviously have no idea about how well the class is balanced.

Potato_Priest

2017-12-04, 11:28 AM

Your lizardfolk player sounds like a pain.

I have found that some players just like to whine, however, and that it's best when I just ignore them for the most part. Perhaps this describes your guy?

LeonBH

2017-12-04, 11:45 AM

Thank you all for y'all comments. Last night I was Angry and I just had to get it off my chest and I didn't want to do that to my players. The firearm reload was just a trigger that started one of my players arguing with me again.

snip

Don't run another game for this group. Disband the group and tell them you're tired, you need a break from DMing.

Captain Panda

2017-12-04, 12:25 PM

I think that you should either find a new group (there are always more people who want to play than DM, always), or have a sit-down with the group and discuss expectations. Complaining about the monsters a DM uses and the statblocks thereof really isn't the job of the player. The DM is not obligated to stick to the stat blocks in the Monster Manual. That's in the rules, it says right in the book you can adjust them, give them classes, and even provides guidelines on how doing so adjusts the challenge rating. Your players are being metagaming turds.

That said, you sound like you have some work to do on the DMing end, as well. Expectations should be set early, and you should communicate with your players about this rather than complaining about them to strangers. "Stop whining about rules minutia, or you will need to find a new game. Don't complain that you can't do things that you characters would not reasonably be able to do. Real people did not sleep in plate."

Also, you need to work on your formatting. When you don't break your text into paragraphs it makes it a headache to read for others.

jaappleton

2017-12-04, 12:29 PM

I'm sorry, I hate to come across as a jerk about this, but the amount of typos and spelling errors in OPs post makes it difficult to seriously address this.

You came here asking for advice and help, and you can't be bothered to make sure your post is legible?

GlenSmash!

2017-12-04, 02:19 PM

lunaticfringe

2017-12-04, 02:33 PM

I like Critical Role. I do not like the Gunslinger, or most of Mercers homebrew. It's fiddly. It feels like a little too much Pathfinder in my 5e.

If I want to play a gunslinger, I'll refluff a Crossbow expert Battlemaster.

Word. Rules for reloads as a bonus action exist (though I personally favor Reload burning your Move). It just feels like the Battlemaster with a Gun does it better, though I may not have the final Version.

It sounds like your player's don't respect you as a DM, but it's your job to make sure you read their class rules. If you want to change something you have to let them know before or after the session. Changing stuff midplay is Sloppy and there will be arguments.

Honest Tiefling

2017-12-04, 03:21 PM

I realize he is the DM. But there is nothing "rules-lawyer" about wanting the DM to play by the written rules.

No, but you don't find games you like by harassing the DM, especially after the first session! That's like me coming to a party and complaining about all foods that don't conform to my special diet and pitching a fit during the party. Sounds like more then a few players are playing fast and loose with the rules, so this makes even less sense.

I'm on board with the plan of sitting them down and setting some ground rules. If that doesn't work, vote with your feet and replace your players. Especially if this is your only contact with them.

Corsair14

2017-12-04, 04:02 PM

Before every campaign I print out a hand out with all changes and additions to the basic rules the campaign will have. Usually there is a provision that there is no homebrew unless approved. Also a boldfaced and in CAPS statement that in all arguments reality and historical precedent will win the argument. I don't pay attention to encumbrance unless I notice they are walking around with 20 weapons, a suit of armor, a full tent(you need a pack horse for a true tent), liquor bar, etc. The reality sets in. But I come from an era where the game was more theater of the mind and less stat for this and rules for that.

@ SKYBLAZE Love the LARP armor comment up there, pretty amusing and something I was going to allude to also. I actually fight in actual articulated plate armor. Even sca armor while usually metal and much more functional than larp armor, is not as heavy or thick as real armor was, no one is going to be fighting at an event with a bullet proofed breast plate for example. I have slept in my armor, but only after fighting all day, sat down and fell unconscious after pounding a few beers at the camp and the adrenalin wearing off all of a sudden. Woke up a few hours later with more than more my normal share of armor bites. On the bright side the showers were empty by then.

Hypersmith

2017-12-04, 04:11 PM

I feel more comfortable saying this here, but yeah I sympathize with OP as well - to some extent. When I first DMd my players all followed CR and one was pretty fanatic about it. Drove me crazy feeling like I was always being compared. Ended up ending the game, there were also a host of other issues with scheduling and my own dissatisfaction with the game.

Honestly I think he should disband the group and start from scratch if he wants to continue DMing. I know I'm still on break.

Callin

2017-12-04, 04:33 PM

You are taking a lot of flak here OP but I agree with you. HOWEVER you should always inspect a character to make sure its 1) Legal and 2) if its something you even WANT in your games. Another thing is the Lizardfolk... man do I have issue with him. I am a Powergamer, but I always get DM approval before I try to change something thats written. I dont stop games in the middle of Combat to Argue something either. Thats for after the session. Though I will say a sentence or two to plead a case for a better ruling, but then drop it till after. So your group has issues that ya'll need to work out. So I suggest the next session be a "Session 0". Ya'll get together and hash out ALL the rules yall are going to use. Check characters. Be civil and understanding but make it the game you want to run.

I dont watch CR at all but I do have a player in my group who does. He has the sense to not compare the two though.

Yagyujubei

2017-12-04, 04:40 PM

MadBear

2017-12-04, 04:44 PM

Having seen how Matt's gunslinger works, I will say it seems rather underpowered as is. (an attack to reload, for only a tiny buff to damage dice, and the added in risk of misfires). The pro's don't really outweigh the cons. Heck, Percy just using crossbows would make way more sense and he'd do more damage anyway.

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-04, 05:35 PM

No, but you don't find games you like by harassing the DM, especially after the first session!

That depends. I had a GM once who was very open about two things, one was his houserules (relatively small, and meant to make combat faster), the other was that apart from them he wanted to run it essentially RAW. We ended up adding in a new skill because one player didn't realise it existed, and changing the combat houserules slightly because it rendered one of my skills useless (we essentially just noted that a successful Quick Draw check meant you counted has having drawn your weapon before your turn). Generally if you could read him the rule he'd agree to run it that way. But I have had other GMs who'd much rather you kept quiet about it, and one who knew the rules so well there was literally no point arguing, it would be noted down as a house rule already.

With regards to the OP, reloading a gun in a single action is bad? It's normal to downright generous in my experience, depending on whether you're using black powder weapons (ten rounds to reload in the system I run, longer if wheellock or rifled) or weapons with magazines (one action to reload). I once cut all Shadowrun reloading times to one action because it became easier. Throw anybody complaining about it at the Lamentations of the Flame Princess firearms rules, 5+ rounds to reload (4+ if using a set of 12 Apostles), at least a one in ten chance of a misfire, only as much damage as a crossbow, but very good at ignoring armour at short range only.

Okay, that's a bit extreme, but I do recommend looking at the rules just because they're a relatively good set of D&Dised firearms rules where guns have a place, and that place is not king of the adventuring battlefield. They're generally only worthwhile for opening shots when you have no intention of being stealthy, otherwise they're just loud and take a long time to reload in a system where most 0th level enemies can go from 'medium range' to 'melee range' in a single turn.

In all seriousness, there are two rules for a game:

What the GM says goes.
If the GM abuses the first rule the players also go.

So in honesty, you would be withing your rights for a character to get drunk (I assume they got a save) and have their gear stolen, but if it happens just because one too many times, then you won't be running games or will at least get a lot of complaining. Like I had a player who spent all their starting money on drugs (they went for an unarmed build to have more money), they came back after their first mission to find their home had been raided when they were array (because unlike them I did not think it was hilarious). Most of the players actually thought it was rather fun, setting up their characters against the police directly (it was Shadowrun, so they were already criminals).

THE GM IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT. However, in an attempt to make everything run more smoothly it is generally accepted that if the rules do not mention it then we act as if they were.

lebefrei

2017-12-05, 03:28 AM

Your communication skills are making it hard for me to fully understand all of your issues, and I do wonder if that is an issue you might have at the table.

However, as a fairly experienced DM I have some suggestions. First, you're being pushed around into allowing homebrew that you aren't experienced with and you're letting players make choices that aren't based on the rules, but from someone that I gather is a youtuber. Why are you doing this? Cut it out. Say no. You don't like someone using some random pdf class that you obviously didn't read carefully? Tell them no more of that; use Adventurer's League rules. I've always done that and it tends to work great. Player's Handbook plus one more OFFICIAL book, and that's what you can draw from. If they don't like it, and you obviously aren't having fun, tell them to take a hike.

I really do mean that, and I know it may end your game. Sometimes it does. But I've found that if I am DMing for people that I don't mesh with, I am just going to resent them and the whole experience, and it's going to feel like a job. I was more willing to put up with that when I was younger (I get the feeling you're young) but now as I age and have more responsibilities in life, I don't have time for things that I don't get anything out of, and I get nothing out of a bad game with players I don't like.

That even goes if they're real friends of mine; "Matt, I like hanging out, playing video games and watching movies with you, dude, but we don't see eye to eye on the way we play D&D. For the sake of our friendship, I cannot continue to DM for you. It's a negative, trying experience for both of us." Huge min/max metagamer, real scenario. He didn't like it, but it had to be and our friendship survived until I moved away. Now if they aren't friends of yours, really tell them to get the hell out. Who needs to hang out with a bunch of people you don't like to entertain them? Are they paying you?

If you decide to keep running the game, you need to put your foot down. As many others have said, make sure they know you're not this DM superstar they're all in love with, and you never will be. They are playing at your table, with your rules. Also, may I very highly suggest trying to contact this DM and asking him in clearer English, please edit or have a love one edit your message before sending it off angrily for advice on how to handle your players? I'd think someone would possibly even answer that question on their channel if they do Q&A.

Finally if you do ever allow homebrew, even if you made it, you need to have a discussion with your players about it so that everyone at the table both understands it and agrees on it being allowed in the game. Otherwise, if you make a ruling that is supported by an official book, turn to the page, read it out loud, and move on. You're done.

Arkhios

2017-12-05, 04:04 AM

"I'm not Matt Mercer and you aren't being paid to perform for subscribers. Please respect my rulings."

The End

Very much this. Matt Mercer's just one guy, who just so happens to be a voice actor celebrity. Who cares?!

Seriously. From what I've seen of his Critical Role games, yes, he is a good story teller and arguably fine DM. However, I dislike how much he handwaves the rules as written. I mean, sure, houserules are every DM's prerogative, but they are only that: Matt Mercer's Houserules. Not the RAW as seen in the official rules. Don't take Matt Mercer's word as if he was some kind of god. He isn't. What's more important, Matt Mercer's word has zero weight in any other table than his own.

LeonBH

2017-12-05, 04:49 AM

Very much this. Matt Mercer's just one guy, who just so happens to be a voice actor celebrity. Who cares?!

Seriously. From what I've seen of his Critical Role games, yes, he is a good story teller and arguably fine DM. However, I dislike how much he handwaves the rules as written. I mean, sure, houserules are every DM's prerogative, but they are only that: Matt Mercer's Houserules. Not the RAW as seen in the official rules. Don't take Matt Mercer's word as if he was some kind of god. He isn't. What's more important, Matt Mercer's word has zero weight in any other table than his own.

Based on the interviews he's given, Matt Mercer would agree with you.

GlenSmash!

2017-12-05, 02:53 PM

Based on the interviews he's given, Matt Mercer would agree with you.

Very True. For one he's very upfront about the houserules the show uses.

jollydm

2017-12-05, 03:16 PM

GlenSmash!

2017-12-05, 03:21 PM

To be fair, before 5e came out they were playing Pathfinder.

Yup. I can see why it happened.

In truth I would love to see a Bloodhunter that was a little more streamlined.

Edit: Or just turn the Bloodhunter subclasses into Ranger Subclasses.

Demonslayer666

2017-12-05, 05:12 PM

There's a lot of disrespect targeted at you at your table. I would highly suggest that you take back control of your game. They are trying to make you run Matt Mercer's game, but it's your game, and you need to reestablish that.

When players argue, let them state what they have an issue with, and then you make a ruling and move on with the game. You will have to take charge and direct the game here. I recommend avoiding looking things up and spending time with your nose in the books to resolve rule disputes (this wastes everyone's time). Look them up after the game and keep the game moving. Spells are the exception here - we frequently have to look them up at my table. If they continue to argue after you have made a decision, put a stop to it, and say that you will look it up after the game rather than wasting everyone's time (everyone is here to have fun). The players have to trust the DM to run the game.

As DM, don't dwell on the minutia, don't take things personally. Keep the flow of the game light and fun. When you question a player's ability, instead of arguing, take the word of the player. You can look it up after the game to see if it really works like that if it seems broken. The DM has to trust the players. Even when I catch a mistake, I will sometimes overlook it to keep the game flowing.

Arkhios

2017-12-07, 06:30 AM

Last time I responded to this thread was after skimming over the issue rather quickly, but now that I returned and read it through properly, I can concur with this:

Don't run another game for this group. Disband the group and tell them you're tired, you need a break from DMing.
Moreover, when you eventually roll a new campaign to run, whether it is with these same guys or not, make it absolutely clear, that the rules must be same for everyone. No one should be allowed to make their own rulings when creating their own characters (like this lizardman's player apparently did/does). While technically being a hexblade who has another patron's extended spell list isn't exactly unbalanced, if you didn't know of this and didn't allow it, the player did wrong.
So, I repeat, not a single player should be allowed to make their own house rules for your game (on their own volition). Only you can do that (although, if the group agrees to a suggestion, it might be worth discussing it, but only after the game).

In the future, be upfront that whatever your players want from their characters to be able to do, it has to come through you, the DM of that game. If they want to play some cool homebrew someone else has made, they have to show the source to you first and also accept that you have the right, as the DM, to alter or even revoke homebrews at any point of the game if and whenever you feel the impact isn't quite right for your game.

it says on the gunslinger pdf under the reload proporty it takes 1 attack or action to reload.
I honestly missed this part. That is a ridiculous rule. The normal rule to reload as either an Action or a Bonus Action is much better, and to be frank, I agree with this:

I do not like the Gunslinger, or most of Mercers homebrew. It's fiddly.
...especially because they are fiddly.

DarkKnightJin

2017-12-07, 09:26 AM

I pointed a fellow D&D enthusiast towards Critical Role to watch. He came by a few days ago, asking for a bit of help with his Monk. First time player, still grasping the rules.

I explicitly told him that while CR is fun to watch or draw inspiration from.. He should under no circumstances expect any DM to allow what Matt allows in his game. I also explained that a LOT of what we see is houserules at work.

I do hope he got the message.. I'd hate to have created someone that goes "But Matt Mercer doea it that way!"
Upside: Coming up soon is this guy's first session, and I will be in the same party. I know a bunch of the rules by heart, and I'll be trying to lawyer the rules in a way that helps the DM. Be a second point for the newbies to focus their questions.

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-07, 01:12 PM

Last time I responded to this thread was after skimming over the issue rather quickly, but now that I returned and read it through properly, I can concur with this:

Moreover, when you eventually roll a new campaign to run, whether it is with these same guys or not, make it absolutely clear, that the rules must be same for everyone. No one should be allowed to make their own rulings when creating their own characters (like this lizardman's player apparently did/does). While technically being a hexblade who has another patron's extended spell list isn't exactly unbalanced, if you didn't know of this and didn't allow it, the player did wrong.
So, I repeat, not a single player should be allowed to make their own house rules for your game (on their own volition). Only you can do that (although, if the group agrees to a suggestion, it might be worth discussing it, but only after the game).

In the future, be upfront that whatever your players want from their characters to be able to do, it has to come through you, the DM of that game. If they want to play some cool homebrew someone else has made, they have to show the source to you first and also accept that you have the right, as the DM, to alter or even revoke homebrews at any point of the game if and whenever you feel the impact isn't quite right for your game.

This, so much this. It's why I refuse to let anybody play a character they didn't create at the table (at least when the campaign begins), because at that point I know they're following all the rules I'm using (which I'll generally bend and alter the setting if a player really wants to play something else). The most important lesson any GM can learn is 'have a session zero to establish the baselines, house rules, and expectations, with input from your players'.

I honestly missed this part. That is a ridiculous rule. The normal rule to reload as either an Action or a Bonus Action is much better, and to be frank, I agree with this:

...especially because they are fiddly.

I'm just reading it properly (got it, decided I didn't like it after a skim, never touched it again) now, and it's insanely fiddly. My full thoughts are as follows:
-The regaining of grit points from attacks is just really fiddly and unlikely to come up, it would have been better to just give them a slightly bigger pool (yes, it increases nova potential, but a player who novas only has themselves to blame later on).
-Quickdraw is probably my favourite ability, I remember when I made some firearm focused subclasses I actually gave one the second half of it.
-Not overly fond of most of the grit-activated powers, but they don't seem overly powerful. Trick shot is just weird, if you're going into that much detail it shouldn't be limited to firearms.
-Lightning Reload is fine, I actually gave a better version to one of my subclasses (which I'm wishing I hadn't now I look back at them).
-Lots of times where you gain several abilities at one level, relies on multiple weak abilities whereas subclasses normally provide one strong ability.

The firearms themselves are, well they're a bad set of rules for firearms. Pistols have had the equivalent of centuries of refinement compared to muskets, reloading is extremely quick to the point where it almost doesn't matter (a peperbox loses one out of every seven attacks, until level 11 that's probably less than one lost attack per combat), and the misfire rules aren't overly fun. Worse, they're just a really bad simulation of firearms, representing none of the reasons firearms were actually used.

I do like my Outrider more, and might even ask to play it if I get to play in 5e again. It works around the limitations of firearms, they take time to reload and so the Outrider carries a lot of pistols. It's focused on a fast skirmishing playstyle rather than sitting back and plinking, but I could totally build a less mobile version if I wanted. But realistic black powder weapons have a rather interesting quality that simulates reality rather well, their longer reload time means that they'll be preferred by people who aren't trained warriors.

So yeah, fiddly and some weird design decisions.

Tanarii

2017-12-07, 01:26 PM

I pointed a fellow D&D enthusiast towards Critical Role to watch.
Ugh. If it wasn't a ridiculous position to take, I'd put "have you watched enough Critical Roles to Come to an informed opinion about it? Do you hold any opinion other than it's total garbage?" on my campaign application. :smallamused:

The worst part is how it teaches players and DMs to be terrible players and DMs.

Vaz

2017-12-07, 01:50 PM

To the people who say you need to take back your game, you'll be making the choice and 'risk' of doing it without your current players.

But unfortunately, this is a community game. If you're not playng the game your players want to play, then yiu're a **** DM if you continue to force your ethos on the players, if that's what they want.

I have a grouo that doesn't really play much combat, maybe 1/month in weekly games, but another that has done more combat in a month than that group in a year. If i forced the 'non combat' group into a series of challenges that were overcome by combat, they'd lose the interest in playing.

Suck it up buttercup, because if you continue to clash with players unless they play your campaign your way, it is entirely your fault. DM isn't spelt 'Gee oh dee'. They are in control of the dungeon, dungeon master. The rules are a community affair. It may have been designed in mind for general public, but that doesn't mean that the general public are playing your game (or they are, and that's where you're going wrong, Adventurers League is a blight on DnD). Adapt it to ypur community: the 3 or more players around the table.

Yes, you as a DM are playing too, but you are meant to be empowering the players. You are giving them XP. You are giving them challenges they are meant to overcome. You give them loot. When you get more experienced, you'll begin to understand exactly how **** the rules actually are, and homebrew and houserule will be second nature.

One of my characters has a horde of potions that never get used because the Action economy isn't worth it, and out of combat healing is efficient enough to sustain me more than spending an action I can do 30+ damage with than healing 8-9. Ergo, DM decided rather than having then go to waste, I can learn how to down then as a Bonus Action, and even going as far as turning them into vials of Healing which can be shot as an arrow, magically enchanted to deal only 1pt of damage (making them a risk on dying targets)

That said, if you want to ask your players, pick up the Tal Dorei setting book: there is a feat written by Matt Mercer giving the players access to Bonus Action drink.

With the new Drunken Master Monk Archetype, feel free to throw one of those at the party, and give them a skill challenge (3-5 consecutive days of Heavy Drinking during downtime after meeting him, Con check scaling every day, gold expense, potentially nonlethal bar brawls while considered poisoned) which the reward is the bonus feat. That way, you're putting your authority on the game, while being seen as beneficial, while providing knowledge to the players. In future games, they are aware of the option of healing with a BA, but also its cost.

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-07, 01:55 PM

Ugh. If it wasn't a ridiculous position to take, I'd put "have you watched enough Critical Roles to Come to an informed opinion about it? Do you hold any opinion other than it's total garbage?" on my campaign application. :smallamused:

The worst part is how it teaches players and DMs to be terrible players and DMs.

I couldn't get past the episode, so many introductions about characters I don't care about. Comparatively I knew half the stuff in the Titansgrave introductory episode but it was still engaging, because I knew that this stuff would come up again. If it had again been just four characters I could have got past it.

I'm probably going to try it again just to see what you mean by that last sentence. I remember that I found Will Wheaton's GMing the weakest bit of Titansgrave, as the rest actually acted reasonably close to what groups I've been in have been like, and I eventually started viewing it as an example of how 'hey guys, I'm going to run this plot, do you mind staying on the rails' would go. It's obviously five people being paid to perform, but it felt more like improv, like the only one with the actual script was Will (I also suspect it was heavily edited to remove tangents and minor waffling).

GlenSmash!

2017-12-07, 02:11 PM

Demonslayer666

2017-12-07, 02:13 PM

...snip...

But unfortunately, this is a community game. If you're not playng the game your players want to play, then yiu're a **** DM if you continue to force your ethos on the players, if that's what they want.

...snip....

I disagree completely. That does not make you a bad DM. The DM has to have the ability to say no and establish boundaries for the players, and be respected and listened to when a ruling is made.

Players should not whine and complain until they get their way. That would make me quit running the game immediately.

Sigreid

2017-12-07, 11:51 PM

I'm a bad person and ex navy. The next time they tried to pull a Mercer does thing I'd be tempted to say something like "we're here to play our game not suck Matt Mercer's @#$%."

Asmotherion

2017-12-08, 12:55 AM

Alright... No offence but, here are some follow up questions:

How old are you?
How old is the player in question?
In case the answear to any of the above questions is "above 18", I suppose you should see that this is not a D&D issue, but a group not functioning correctly issue. If not, my bad, I'll explain:

The problem here, is not that your player "powergames", or that he "cheats". It's that you, as a DM allow any other authority at your table to surpass your own authority.

-Matt Mercer says this? That's great, and he's a great DM. At his table. Now, unless he's going to join us and DM for you tonight, you'll stick by my rules and do as I say. No more out of game arguements or comments, or I'm going to add xp penalty to your character.

Now, a side note to that: Don't get into the pitfall of becoming a DM tyrant, or everyone will just leave your game. Try to be as fair as possible, reward creativity, just be strict and respect your own ground rules. Always remember rule 0.

Arkhios

2017-12-08, 12:59 AM

How old are you?
How old is the player in question?

Good point, although IMX, 18 is still a bit vague breaking point for adult behaviour :smalltongue:

Asmotherion

2017-12-08, 01:11 AM

Good point, although IMX, 18 is still a bit vague breaking point for adult behaviour :smalltongue:

True, but I guess if they're old enough to legally drink, drive, vote, go to war, raise a kid, and be accounted responsible for criminal behaviour, they should at least make an effort to sort out some minor dispute at a friendly D&D table :P

Vaz

2017-12-08, 01:13 AM

I disagree completely. That does not make you a bad DM. The DM has to have the ability to say no and establish boundaries for the players, and be respected and listened to when a ruling is made.

Players should not whine and complain until they get their way. That would make me quit running the game immediately.

As is your right to stop DMing. But it is also their right to enjoy their evening and having a certain expectation to play in a certain way to have a DM who is insistent on playing differently than that IS being a **** DM.

The differs nce here is that the DM is getting uppity because he feels that they are questioning his ability to DM. They aren't, they just have different expectations than him. And a DM who insists on changing things, and going against his players wishes is entirely free to jog on and never return.

Dudewithknives

2017-12-08, 01:13 AM

If someone whined that I did not do things like MM, I would be tell them, " I don't have to care about getting views and website hits. Also I have a concept of how to balance homebrew creations. Thanks."

Arkhios

2017-12-08, 03:38 AM

As is your right to stop DMing. But it is also their right to enjoy their evening and having a certain expectation to play in a certain way to have a DM who is insistent on playing differently than that IS being a **** DM.

The differs nce here is that the DM is getting uppity because he feels that they are questioning his ability to DM. They aren't, they just have different expectations than him. And a DM who insists on changing things, and going against his players wishes is entirely free to jog on and never return.

To have a fun game depends on mutual agreement upon how the game is run and the rules are viewed. No player (nor Matt Mercer) should be allowed to dictate how the DM should be ruling things. The game is meant to be enjoyed by everyone, including the DM.

If someone is tyrant in that game, it's the players who insist on certain style of play when the DM doesn't agree with it. If you agree to play in someone's game, you are assumed to play by the rules of the DM of that table, not by someone else's rules.

Tanarii

2017-12-08, 10:25 AM

I'm probably going to try it again just to see what you mean by that last sentence.

Would you mind expanding on this? Yeah, not really justified. Because it's judging other play styles and calling someone a Bad DM or Bad Player isn't cool. So instead of saying it makes them bad, here's what I don't like:

He's definitely a Boring DM, and many of his players are Boring Players. Although that's a personal judgment, I know it's not just me. He bores his own players. His players bore the other players. Regularly. He has no decent sense of pacing, and you can regularly see his players getting twitchy.

The other thing I don't personally like is I don't think he or the players are very good at establishing necessary information needed for proper resolution, or the results of it. They're too busy acting to properly communicate what they're attempting to do, or describing results flowerly to give the important details of what has happened. Or setting the scene instead of telling players what they need to know.

It's passable entertainment to watch externally, if you don't mind super slow. It'd be horrible to play in.

mephnick

2017-12-08, 11:16 AM

Mara

2017-12-08, 11:30 AM

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-08, 11:40 AM

He's definitely a Boring DM, and many of his players are Boring Players. Although that's a personal judgment, I know it's not just me. He bores his own players. His players bore the other players. Regularly. He has no decent sense of pacing, and you can regularly see his players getting twitchy.

He also suffers from a full table, which from my experience can be very hard to keep players engaged. I once played in a game with 10-12 players per session, for one GM (which thankfully was not me, I could never do that), and outside of combat you could check your phone and not be caught for twenty minutes. People reacted in different ways, some went for more outlandish characters to get more attention, some went for quieter characters to move everything along. Mercer's table definitely suffers from a lesser version.

But I'm also agreeing on the 'boring DM, boring players' front. I suspect the complete lack of editing is also a problem here, if they filmed it and then had somebody cut the pauses it would be a lot more watchable. He also seems to have relatively little idea that he should try to keep all players engaged, leading to sections where four players are sitting around not interacting for ten minutes at a time while the others have a conversation (again, basing this on one episode).

The other thing I don't personally like is I don't think he or the players are very good at establishing necessary information needed for proper resolution, or the results of it. They're too busy acting to properly communicate what they're attempting to do, or describing results flowerly to give the important details of what has happened. Or setting the scene instead of telling players what they need to know.

I've noticed that, because they're all voice actors there's a bit too much work being put into character voices. But that's personal taste.

But yes, there's a lot of waffling and attempts at sounding grand, whereas I've discovered that the most important thing for a GM at least is to be direct. It's better to be sparse on the details than overly flowerly, because you can fill in later.

It's passable entertainment to watch externally, if you don't mind super slow. It'd be horrible to play in.

Certainly, although I consider it bad D&D.

EDIT: can we all try to keep it civil? I don't want to have to call the mods because this devolves into people hurling insults at each other. We could have some decent discussion about what the OP should do and try to work out why their player is asking to use Mercer's houserules.

The Cats

2017-12-08, 11:41 AM

Yeah, not really justified. Because it's judging other play styles and calling someone a Bad DM or Bad Player isn't cool. So instead of saying it makes them bad, here's what I don't like:

He's definitely a Boring DM, and many of his players are Boring Players. Although that's a personal judgment, I know it's not just me. He bores his own players. His players bore the other players. Regularly. He has no decent sense of pacing, and you can regularly see his players getting twitchy.

The other thing I don't personally like is I don't think he or the players are very good at establishing necessary information needed for proper resolution, or the results of it. They're too busy acting to properly communicate what they're attempting to do, or describing results flowerly to give the important details of what has happened. Or setting the scene instead of telling players what they need to know.

It's passable entertainment to watch externally, if you don't mind super slow. It'd be horrible to play in.

Man, I really like Critical Role, but now you've said it I can't unsee it! Maybe I'll stick to the podcasts now so I don't have to see the other players getting fidgety while Liam or Marisha go on another angst ride or Matt decides the quest giver needs more dramatic pauses in her speech to drive the point home.

(I like the angst rides and dramatic pauses, but Travis rolling his eyes gives me empathy pangs)

KorvinStarmast

2017-12-08, 11:47 AM

I'm a bad person and ex navy. The next time they tried to pull a Mercer does thing I'd be tempted to say something like "we're here to play our game not suck Matt Mercer's @#$%." I am also ex Navy, and I support your initiative. :smallcool:

-Matt Mercer says this? That's great, and he's a great DM. At his table. Now, unless he's going to join us and DM for you tonight, you'll stick by my rules and do as I say. No more out of game arguements or comments, or I'm going to add xp penalty to your character. Good points.

Critique of Mercer and his table
Yes.

1. You allowed homebrew. Didn't know the rules. And then were pissed that the player, you perceive as a powergamer, followed his rules. That problem was addressed earlier, but it bears repeating. If you allow homebrew, you have to first know what it is so that you know how it fits into the game so that you can make appropriate rulings. That's a DM 101 deal.

Temperjoke

2017-12-08, 12:00 PM

Man, I really like Critical Role, but now you've said it I can't unsee it! Maybe I'll stick to the podcasts now so I don't have to see the other players getting fidgety while Liam or Marisha go on another angst ride or Matt decides the quest giver needs more dramatic pauses in her speech to drive the point home.

(I like the angst rides and dramatic pauses, but Travis rolling his eyes gives me empathy pangs)

In fairness, I like to see Critical Role as a microcosm of D&D. I mean, you have a variety of personality types and the characters they've created. And they are committed to these characters that they played for years before the actual Critical Role broadcast got started. I can't even imagine playing the same character for that many years. And as much fidgeting and eye-rolling you see happen from the other players watching, judging from their twitter accounts and interviews, they're doing just as much internal eye-rolling at the same time. They're used to this sort of thing though, in the various roles that they have in their regular work. This is also the consequence of having 7-8 regular players too, plus the odd guest player, in a game that is as much roleplay as it is combat. Travis, for example, built a very optimized character for combat, with a thinner backstory (which developed and expanded over time) compared to some of the other characters, so his character shines more in combat than in the roleplay parts. Matt Mercer also likes to play by the rule of cool, and doesn't like to add time to the slow game by bogging things down by referring back to the rules constantly. After things have ended that night, they have gone back and discussed rulings and corrected things going forward, we just don't see it happen on screen because they don't want to mess with the flow and the fun of the moment.

That's not the worst thing that some tables could adopt, playing by ear during the game then afterwards researching the answer and making a ruling going forward, instead of devolving into pitched arguments over whether something can be done or not.

Vaz

2017-12-08, 12:34 PM

To have a fun game depends on mutual agreement upon how the game is run and the rules are viewed. No player (nor Matt Mercer) should be allowed to dictate how the DM should be ruling things. The game is meant to be enjoyed by everyone, including the DM.

If someone is tyrant in that game, it's the players who insist on certain style of play when the DM doesn't agree with it. If you agree to play in someone's game, you are assumed to play by the rules of the DM of that table, not by someone else's rules.

Mutual agreement: correct: multiple people are in agreement. The DM isn't. But the tyrant is the DM for enforcing, or trying to force a type of play that multiple people don't want to play.

DM, can you explain why you aren't having fun playng DM? Is it because the players prefer Mercers rules choices over Crawfords, Mearls and Perkins? I prefer playing under Leonards, Greeners, Wilcoxes rules which build on the core ruleset.

I mean, you're the DM, but feel free rather than crying on the internet that people thinking Crawford's ability to write rules suck and they prefer to play the style of play they came into the hobby to, just sit down, tell them to shut the **** up, because you are there to have fun, and they are not and they are in the minority, because you are GOD and they are only like 3 people. Pssh. Bonus Action potions? What cancer is this? No, no. You taking a potion as a Bonus Action is ****i g ridiculous, because it stops me having fun by killing you before you kill me.

It's not as though it's even contra setting reasons: playing a Druid or Wizard in Rokugan say, or a game without blackpowder being able to run a Gunslinger, you could turn round and say these aren't possible withim the established setting we are playing, sorry.

I think the DM/OP just has a complex where he feels he is being compared to Matt Mercer, when in reality it's Crawford vs Mercer.

Sigreid

2017-12-08, 12:43 PM

Mutual agreement: correct: multiple people are in agreement. The DM isn't. But the tyrant is the DM for enforcing, or trying to force a type of play that multiple people don't want to play.

DM, can you explain why you aren't having fun playng DM? Is it because the players prefer Mercers rules choices over Crawfords, Mearls and Perkins? I prefer playing under Leonards, Greeners, Wilcoxes rules which build on the core ruleset.

I mean, you're the DM, but feel free rather than crying on the internet that people thinking Crawford's ability to write rules suck and they prefer to play the style of play they came into the hobby to, just sit down, tell them to shut the **** up, because you are there to have fun, and they are not and they are in the minority, because you are GOD and they are only like 3 people. Pssh. Bonus Action potions? What cancer is this? No, no. You taking a potion as a Bonus Action is ****i g ridiculous, because it stops me having fun by killing you before you kill me.

It's not as though it's even contra setting reasons: playing a Druid or Wizard in Rokugan say, or a game without blackpowder being able to run a Gunslinger, you could turn round and say these aren't possible withim the established setting we are playing, sorry.

I think the DM/OP just has a complex where he feels he is being compared to Matt Mercer, when in reality it's Crawford vs Mercer.

We don't know much about the social dynamic here but I'll say that a DM is entirely within his or her rights to say "this is the kind of game I'm willing to DM. If that's not what you guys want, I'm not the right person to DM." That said, a DM should be willing to listen to the players and consider if some of their suggestions can be incorporated into the style of game they are willing to run.

Arkhios

2017-12-08, 12:51 PM

Mutual agreement: correct: multiple people are in agreement. The DM isn't. But the tyrant is the DM for enforcing, or trying to force a type of play that multiple people don't want to play.

To be honest, that depends on who proposed the game: the players or the DM?

If it was the players, then sure, they might be more entitled to opinions regarding the play style.

However, if the DM asked whether these players wanted to participate in a story he had in mind, I strongly disagree that any player would have any right to mandate how his game should be run. Treat the campaign as a piece of art. An artist, let's say a painter, wouldn't let bystanders to mess with his/her painting, so why should the DM?

Waterdeep Merch

2017-12-08, 01:10 PM

To be honest, that depends on who proposed the game: the players or the DM?

If it was the players, then sure, they might be more entitled to opinions regarding the play style.

However, if the DM asked whether these players wanted to participate in a story he had in mind, I strongly disagree that any player would have any right to mandate how his game should be run. Treat the campaign as a piece of art. An artist, let's say a painter, wouldn't let bystanders to mess with his/her painting, so why should the DM?
Or, really, if they really don't like it, they could do the responsible thing- quit the game, either find a new DM or run one themselves. As they haven't, it's likely the OP's game is at least somewhat fun. Or the players are lazy, one of the two.

I don't know where this whole 'the players should dictate the game' mindset came from. There's always been an easy way for players not to play with crap DM's, and that's not to play with them. I've done this for my entire gaming life, and have never played with a crap DM more than one session as a result. It's that easy.

A good DM listens to their player's desires and finds ways to incorporate what they can, definitely, but sometimes it either doesn't work out that well or the DM simply isn't good enough to do these things. That's hardly a crime. A bad player, meanwhile, gripes endlessly and tries to take the steering wheel. If you want to drive so bad, get your own car. If you want to DM so bad, DM a game.

It's less like a painter taking outside input and more like someone inviting people over for dinner, only to have the guests whine that they didn't order take out because they want what they saw on TV. The guests aren't obligated to eat the food, but the host isn't obligated to serve them whatever they want, either.

Tanarii

2017-12-08, 01:37 PM

I've noticed that, because they're all voice actors there's a bit too much work being put into character voices. But that's personal taste.

EDIT: can we all try to keep it civil? I don't want to have to call the mods because this devolves into people hurling insults at each other. We could have some decent discussion about what the OP should do and try to work out why their player is asking to use Mercer's houserules.
Both of these are why I called myself out on using Bad DM/Player language.

I don't like "acting before play-ability" thing. But lots of people do. They think deep character acting with everything being stated in the 1st person in high verbose (or whatever you wan to call it) is the only way to "properly Roleplay".

Also, it makes for FAR more interesting entertainment/watching from the outside. If the ephisodes were edited, they definitely would be superior to watch compared to watching any game I'd personally consider superior to play in.

That's a problem I have with watching RPG games on twitch or youtube or whatever. What makes them fun to watch isn't (to me) the same thing that makes them fun to play. (This often goes for board or computer games too. Even some sports.)

Vaz

2017-12-08, 01:44 PM

jojo

2017-12-08, 01:47 PM

I'm a bad person and ex navy. The next time they tried to pull a Mercer does thing I'd be tempted to say something like "we're here to play our game not suck Matt Mercer's @#$%."

Same here, Active Army, play with a bunch of filthy legs. Anger often abounds, but back to the OPs issue.

Sit your players down and talk to them like rational adults... unless you're adolescents... in which case sit them down and talk like the adults you see on TV... sorry... bad example. Talk to them in a soothing voice... man this is harder than I thought it would be.

Try to have a rational, profanity free conversation focused on the issue without criticizing one another while offering possible solutions to the problem at hand. Make sure that they accommodate you equally, compromise means everyone's less than happy but still willing to work together.

If that fails kick them off your table and out of your house.

Seriously though. Rule 0 is "Have Fun" and it needs to apply to the DM as well as the players so let them know that it is not fun for you to be constantly challenged over differences in how the rules are interpreted. Explain to them that for every hour they sit around the table you have to spend two or three hours of your personal time preparing that experience and that you do not feel respected or appreciated as a result of their behavior which if continued will result in you refusing to continue spending your time and effort on enabling them to have fun playing the game. In order to correct this they need to quit detracting from your enjoyment by constantly arguing with you.

Alternately, especially if you're a new DM, it's usually best to simply run adventure modules for a while. An adventure module allows you to leverage tens of thousands of hours of experience from the hundreds of people who collaborated to create it which frees you up to learn and have fun.

Another pertinent piece of advice is that it's usually a bad idea for new DMs to go outside the PHB. Just because it exists doesn't mean it's in play, consider limiting the character options to the core PHB in the future and making use of the fact that multi-classing is an optional rule. The fewer variables you have to deal with the better experience you'll be able to facilitate for players at your table.

When I started DMing... (back in the day rant incoming) most of this stuff was fairly simple. I had a few convenient tables to worry about which clearly cross-referenced what Class X could do at Level Z in Situation Z according to Circumstances 1,2,3 etc. We didn't really have to worry too much about optional rules because, well it wasn't Christmas yet so we didn't have those books and once Christmas came around we still didn't because mom and dad thought DnD was Satanic mumbo-jumbo and they weren't gonna let us go any farther down that rabbit hole! Multi-classing was convenient because it just meant that we still had a Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, and two Fighters because there were only five people who wanted to play in the whole school and so all Jim's multi-class Elf Mage/Thief really meant was that when traps needed finding he was a Thief and when stuff needed poly-morphing he was a Mage, provided he remembered to take off that Studded Leather he bought so he didn't have to waste a spell-slot preparing mage-armor just so he didn't get killed because he missed the skeleton while he was finding the acid-dart trap...
The fact that Dave over there had a Dwarf Fighter/Cleric didn't bother me because who cared about that belt of Giant Strength anyway since I never have to worry about the terrifying synergy it had with the Axe of Dwarven Lords that his Cleric class prevented him from ever making use of...

Good times.

All that freed me up to become a better DM though because there was a much more limited set of variables that I had to account for at any given moment so I could concentrate on narrative, description, tone and other important things while being confident that I could always point to a clearly laid out table to overcome any arguments.

There's no reason you can't make the game more simple by cutting away the fat and just using the core rules with none of the optional cheese, no matter how crunchy or fluffy it may be.

Throne12

2017-12-08, 01:51 PM

1. You allowed homebrew. Didn't know the rules. And then were pissed that the player, you perceive as a powergamer, followed his rules. You then took all his stuff next session because he dared correct you. -- this is all you being a little ****.

2. You are mad that your players want to use Matt Mercer's houserules. Why? Are they demanding houserules or just asking? -- this doesn't make sense. Questions don't need rage.

3. You said you wanted to craft a story not play a game. D&D is both. You are wrong for thinking otherwise.

Stop DMing. You have a toxic rage problem. Maybe your players are demanding too much critical role from you, but you really come off as an ass that is getting mad at people for playing a game.

1. The powergamer isn't playing the class
my problem with him is he stops the game to impose house rules. He use in his game that he took from Critical role. I didn't take any of my players stuff I let him play and ruled in his favor. I know my grammar is bad but you didn't read it correct.

2. Yes I was mad. I was mad because I have a player trying to force me to use house rule from another table. He also say sents your a new DM you should do this or that. He would also well tonight's session wasn't that good but your a new DM.

3. I know it's a game I don't have a story to tell. I'm a improvising type of DM. I ask were and what they want to do. Then shape a story about of there acting.

It isn't even me I have had 4 out of 6 of my players say something to me about this player. Also thank you for saying a have a toxic rage problem when you have not met me.

War_lord

2017-12-08, 02:03 PM

As someone who actually likes the roleplaying Grognards hate (partially because anything Grognards hate is good)... I don't like Critical Role. The lack of editing makes it unwatchable as an entertainment product. The lack of adherence to the rules makes it unwatchable as a D&D game. The humor can be divided into three categories, "look at the funny voice I'm doing", "lol random" and "in-jokes" . None of which appeal to me.

If I want a story about a D&D campaign, I have Demonac's "Tales from my D&D campaign", if I want a funny D&D podcast I have Acquisitions Incorporated. I can't understand the appeal of Critical Role, but it obviously exists.

GlenSmash!

2017-12-08, 02:26 PM

Yeah, not really justified. Because it's judging other play styles and calling someone a Bad DM or Bad Player isn't cool. So instead of saying it makes them bad, here's what I don't like:

He's definitely a Boring DM, and many of his players are Boring Players. Although that's a personal judgment, I know it's not just me. He bores his own players. His players bore the other players. Regularly. He has no decent sense of pacing, and you can regularly see his players getting twitchy.

The other thing I don't personally like is I don't think he or the players are very good at establishing necessary information needed for proper resolution, or the results of it. They're too busy acting to properly communicate what they're attempting to do, or describing results flowerly to give the important details of what has happened. Or setting the scene instead of telling players what they need to know.

It's passable entertainment to watch externally, if you don't mind super slow. It'd be horrible to play in.

Thank you for replying. I think these are fair criticisms.

I think it's the nature of the fact that they are actors making an unscripted show, that whoever talks the longest or loudest gets the most spotlight.

Making sure spotlight is even among your players can go a long way to making a game better. In fact, it can make up for all sorts of problems.

Likewise I think you are right that the players do a poor job of stating their goal and approach to scenarios. This might again be a victim of "acting".

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-08, 02:50 PM

Both of these are why I called myself out on using Bad DM/Player language.

Sorry, that wasn't aimed at you but at the person who posted just before me.

I don't like "acting before play-ability" thing. But lots of people do. They think deep character acting with everything being stated in the 1st person in high verbose (or whatever you wan to call it) is the only way to "properly Roleplay".

Yes. It annoys me, the best set of roleplayers I played with (campaigns enjoyed: 4 out of 4) never put on voices, although we also were comfortable in our associated roles. We had the unofficial team leader, the shifty guy (me, in the 'causes trouble' sense), the crazy girl (as in, characters tended to not quite be there), the 'do stuff' guy, and the guy who played teenagers. We did change after a while, two of my five characters just weren't shifty, but were questionably sane, and the crazy girl had a dwarven engineer who was just driven. We never put on voices, you would work out if we were speaking in character if we responded to somebody or was or say 'I say' or 'I reply'.

Also, it makes for FAR more interesting entertainment/watching from the outside. If the ephisodes were edited, they definitely would be superior to watch compared to watching any game I'd personally consider superior to play in.

Oh, certainly, and what they need for views is interesting.

I have the problem in that the first 'RPG show' I watched was Titanfall, which had the benefits of a specifically designed set, scripting (as in the adventure was designed for the format), and editing. It has much less in the way of awkward pauses

That's a problem I have with watching RPG games on twitch or youtube or whatever. What makes them fun to watch isn't (to me) the same thing that makes them fun to play. (This often goes for board or computer games too. Even some sports.)

Completely and utterly. Heck, I'd never run a science fantasy game after the first time I tried, but they're interesting to watch.

KorvinStarmast

2017-12-08, 02:56 PM

As someone who actually likes the roleplaying Grognards hate (partially because anything Grognards hate is good)... Grognards like role playing. I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.

I don't like Critical Role. The lack of editing makes it unwatchable as an entertainment product. The lack of adherence to the rules makes it unwatchable as a D&D game. The humor can be divided into three categories, "look at the funny voice I'm doing", "lol random" and "in-jokes" . None of which appeal to me.
Ditto.

I can't understand the appeal of Critical Role, but it obviously exists. It's been well advertised?

Dudewithknives

2017-12-08, 03:12 PM

Grognards like role playing. I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.

Ditto.
It's been well advertised?

Critical role is popular because they try to draw in fans of other nerd hobbies like video games, sci fi and others.

MM just wants to tell a story that makes sense to him and the rules just happen be in 5e, now.

He is a huge fan of rule 0, he will do whatever to make the story look right to him, and the rules are just there on the side.

That is not some people's style.

I only use rule 0 for if something was designed badly, or the rule makes no sense the way it is worded.

I especially hate they way he does homebrew items and subclasses. He has no concept of balance at all.
He let's rule of cool, and rule of getting more views throw gaming balance out the window.

suplee215

2017-12-08, 03:25 PM

Critical role is popular because they try to draw in fans of other nerd hobbies like video games, sci fi and others.

I especially hate they way he does homebrew items and subclasses. He has no concept of balance at all.
He let's rule of cool, and rule of getting more views throw gaming balance out the window.

Just out of curiosity how are his homebrew subclasses not balance? I played a gunslinger before and it did not feel extremely powerful. You trade one of your attacks every couple of rounds for a higher damage dice and a chance to destroy the weapon. And you need to expend a lot of resources to obtain them. Unsure of the blood hunter and others as I didn't play them but the gunslinger seems to be the biggest one connected to him.

Tanarii

2017-12-08, 03:55 PM

MM just wants to tell a story that makes sense to him and the rules just happen be in 5e, now.

He is a huge fan of rule 0, he will do whatever to make the story look right to him, and the rules are just there on the side.

That is not some people's style. Whats funny is I strongly suspect it's very similar to what it was like playing with Gygax. :smalltongue: And clearly people had fun there.

Demonslayer666

2017-12-08, 03:58 PM

As is your right to stop DMing. But it is also their right to enjoy their evening and having a certain expectation to play in a certain way to have a DM who is insistent on playing differently than that IS being a **** DM.

The differs nce here is that the DM is getting uppity because he feels that they are questioning his ability to DM. They aren't, they just have different expectations than him. And a DM who insists on changing things, and going against his players wishes is entirely free to jog on and never return.

Disrupting the game by arguing, namedropping, and complaining to the DM to make home-brew rule changes mid-game is flat out rude. That behavior should stop immediately, and suggestions should be presented in a non-disruptive manner, outside of game. Expressing your distaste like that is a bad player, and reflects nothing on the DM's ability to run an entertaining game. The DM is not uppity or a tyrant for disliking this behavior or disliking home-brew rules.

If everyone but the DM is in agreement that those rules should be implemented to the point where everyone is going to quit playing, then it's time for a player to step up and run the game with those rules - it is not time for the DM to allow it. But Catch 22: now that player doesn't get to play in the game they want because they have to run it.

Vaz

2017-12-08, 05:50 PM

Disrupting the game by arguing, namedropping, and complaining to the DM to make home-brew rule changes mid-game is flat out rude. That behavior should stop immediately, and suggestions should be presented in a non-disruptive manner, outside of game. Expressing your distaste like that is a bad player, and reflects nothing on the DM's ability to run an entertaining game. The DM is not uppity or a tyrant for disliking this behavior or disliking home-brew rules.

So I allow one of my players play Matt Mercer 's gunslinger. The gunslinger fired all his shot and had to reload. I told him it would take a action to reload. He said that how it works you can spend one of your attacks (not attack action but a attack.)
This is the DM going against what the rules say. Checking OP's post history, he already has issues with the Rules Lawyer (who is also a DM), but also said that he vetted the Homebrew beforehand. Given that the DM has a loose grasp of what the rules say, and is turning round to players and nerfing their characters, and expecting to be respected in return. The players did it right - DM, no this is what the rules say. To which the OP threw a strop, ****ed the game off, stole a players kit. He's the biggest power games I've ever seen (****ing doubt that one sunshine).

If everyone but the DM is in agreement that those rules should be implemented to the point where everyone is going to quit playing, then it's time for a player to step up and run the game with those rules - it is not time for the DM to allow it. But Catch 22: now that player doesn't get to play in the game they want because they have to run it.

Read the thread. TL:DR, DM is ****. Players aren't brilliant, but DM is the cause of it with continued antagonism. DM shouldn't walk away because of gaming incompatability, DM should probably find a new game where he's not intentionally hostile with his players.

Just out of curiosity how are his homebrew subclasses not balance? I played a gunslinger before and it did not feel extremely powerful. You trade one of your attacks every couple of rounds for a higher damage dice and a chance to destroy the weapon. And you need to expend a lot of resources to obtain them. Unsure of the blood hunter and others as I didn't play them but the gunslinger seems to be the biggest one connected to him.

Probably thinking of the old Witch Hunter which kicked off abilities way too early. Celerity+Cruelty or Celerity+Precision at level 12. It has been reworked since. Also, it's not as though others do much better. Kobold Press? Have a ****ing laugh.

Coffee_Dragon

2017-12-08, 05:57 PM

I'm a bad person and ex navy. The next time they tried to pull a Mercer does thing I'd be tempted to say something like "we're here to play our game not suck Matt Mercer's @#$%."

I imagine someone saying this and then a door flies open and Matt Mercer glides in with his shirt unbuttoned and surrounded by bishie sparkles, and then there's an awkward silence.

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-08, 06:00 PM

Just out of curiosity how are his homebrew subclasses not balance? I played a gunslinger before and it did not feel extremely powerful. You trade one of your attacks every couple of rounds for a higher damage dice and a chance to destroy the weapon. And you need to expend a lot of resources to obtain them. Unsure of the blood hunter and others as I didn't play them but the gunslinger seems to be the biggest one connected to him.

Not used any in a game, but from what I remember gunslinger's the good one. It has some problems, but they're mainly not balance problems (the big one is that Grit didn't for with how resources work in this edition). I actually think the problem with the gunslinger of the firearm rules, I downloaded it because I wanted to play a character that fought with a black powder pistol in each hand, and instead got a bunch of 19th century and imaginary guns.

EDIT: of course, homebrew is hard, my own isn't overly balanced.

Dudewithknives

2017-12-08, 06:09 PM

Not used any in a game, but from what I remember gunslinger's the good one. It has some problems, but they're mainly not balance problems (the big one is that Grit didn't for with how resources work in this edition). I actually think the problem with the gunslinger of the firearm rules, I downloaded it because I wanted to play a character that fought with a black powder pistol in each hand, and instead got a bunch of 19th century and imaginary guns.

EDIT: of course, homebrew is hard, my own isn't overly balanced.

All he did was copy the gunslinger from Pathfinder and make the levels match up, dropping the abilities that 5e doesn't use.

Vaz

2017-12-08, 06:13 PM

Not used any in a game, but from what I remember gunslinger's the good one. It has some problems, but they're mainly not balance problems (the big one is that Grit didn't for with how resources work in this edition). I actually think the problem with the gunslinger of the firearm rules, I downloaded it because I wanted to play a character that fought with a black powder pistol in each hand, and instead got a bunch of 19th century and imaginary guns.

EDIT: of course, homebrew is hard, my own isn't overly balanced.

It's almost as if he wrote it so that the guy he was playing with who was rolling a pathfinder gunfighter could continue to play play said class as they changed to 5e.

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-08, 06:29 PM

It's almost as if he wrote it so that the guy he was playing with who was rolling a pathfinder gunfighter could continue to play play said class as they changed to 5e.

Yeah, but it want really signposted well. I get that it's essentially PF's gunslinger, but it doesn't advertise itself as such. Although some of it's features are too godly for 5e, and what the neck is wrong with just going with the 'you get X points, refreshed on a short test' model?

Heck, the reason it's the best is because it's a transplant. Much easier to make an okay subclass from a good base than from a nonexistent one (or a bad one).

I don't know, it's not that the PF gunslinger is bad, but it's a real disappointment to those of is who'd thought we'd found an option to play the arquebuser we were planning on. I love early firearms, even of they should be ****** as primary adventuring weapons.

Vaz

2017-12-08, 07:01 PM

Yeah, but it want really signposted well. I get that it's essentially PF's gunslinger, but it doesn't advertise itself as such. Although some of it's features are too godly for 5e, and what the neck is wrong with just going with the 'you get X points, refreshed on a short test' model?
Warlocks?

Also, make your own. It's Homebrew. Tbh, thhe faxt that the core rule ook happens to be published doesn't change the fact it is nothing more than homebrew in and of itself. Everything started off as homebrew once.

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-09, 04:28 AM

Warlocks?

Also, make your own. It's Homebrew. Tbh, thhe faxt that the core rule ook happens to be published doesn't change the fact it is nothing more than homebrew in and of itself. Everything started off as homebrew once.

What about Warlocks?

And yes, while that's true, it still doesn't mean I wasn't annoyed when it wasn't signposted as 'Gunslinger from PF updated' when it was homebrew. It was a complete waste of my time even looking at it. But that's just me being salty because it wasn't what I wanted.

Vaz

2017-12-09, 05:01 AM

Warlocks get X points on a short rest. They are really **** to play as a result lf that. The short rest model is horse****. Triple the resources available, make them long rest.

If you as a DM cannot escape the 15 minute adventuring day, your players should not be punished by taking certain characters.

Also, you were surprised that the Gunslinger was a Gunslinger, and not some guy who to fulfil his desired class had to spend 2 out 3 rounds reloading?

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-09, 06:04 AM

Warlocks get X points on a short rest. They are really **** to play as a result lf that. The short rest model is horse****. Triple the resources available, make them long rest.

So are Superiority Dice (Battlemasters), Inspiration Dice (Bards, level 5+, secondary resource), and Ki (Monk). Certainly for secondary resources it's a decent mechanic, and it's actually a viable strategy to reduce Nova potential.

I honestly thing they should have made all primary character abilities recharge on a short rest, and all secondaries recharge on a long rest. This would have included giving spellcasters less spell slots, but as they'd essentially get three sets a day this wouldn't be a big issue. This would reduce the ability to nova, but would make sure you can always have your big thing available.

If you as a DM cannot escape the 15 minute adventuring day, your players should not be punished by taking certain characters.

How is taking a short rest character being punished? Lack of an ability to nova? Just because you don't like SR characters (I do) doesn't mean they're bad.

Also, you were surprised that the Gunslinger was a Gunslinger, and not some guy who to fulfil his desired class had to spend 2 out 3 rounds reloading?

Considering I'd never heard of Critical Role when I came across it, yes, yes I was. Which, for the record, did work with the old BP firearm rules, even if you'd be firing slowly.

War_lord

2017-12-09, 09:56 AM

The problem with short rest characters is that they rely on a particular pace being set, and there's no guarantee your table will allow for that.

Tanarii

2017-12-09, 11:45 AM

The problem with short rest characters is that they rely on a particular pace being set, and there's no guarantee your table will allow for that.

The problem with long rest characters is the same.

Vaz

2017-12-09, 01:54 PM

The problem with long rest characters is the same.

But if all are long rest characters then they're all in the same boat. Not equitable. If a DM can't manage the encounter rate as many can't (8? Uwot?) then the game devolves into 'you guys only have 1/3rd resources'. And there's nothing the players can do about it without rolling a new character. If everyone is on the same page then there is no intraparty discrepancy mechanically build into the game.

suplee215

2017-12-09, 02:59 PM

But if all are long rest characters then they're all in the same boat. Not equitable. If a DM can't manage the encounter rate as many can't (8? Uwot?) then the game devolves into 'you guys only have 1/3rd resources'. And there's nothing the players can do about it without rolling a new character. If everyone is on the same page then there is no intraparty discrepancy mechanically build into the game.

You can also solve this by everyone being a short rest character.

Vaz

2017-12-09, 03:21 PM

You can also solve this by everyone being a short rest character.

Sweet. Cut 1/LR abilities into 1/SR abilities.

This forum, sometimes, man.

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-09, 05:41 PM

Sweet. Cut 1/LR abilities into 1/SR abilities.

This forum, sometimes, man.

Oh no, a viable solution that isn't your preferred one! Run!

mephnick

2017-12-09, 05:48 PM

Oh no, a viable solution that isn't your preferred one! Run!

I think his point is that the opposite is not viable.

How do you split a 1/LR ability into 3/SR abilities?

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-09, 06:51 PM

I think his point is that the opposite is not viable.

How do you split a 1/LR ability into 3/SR abilities?

Depends on the ability. For simmering like Rage you reduce the rate at which more are gained but split off a benefit or two until layer levels. For spells, just give less slots. For resources that refresh on a LR only, reduce the resources.

Chaucer's will probably be slightly stronger, but in this case you should have designed the system around them.

In Wraiths and Ruins (an old project of mine revived for the umpteenth time as not a low magic 5e hack) most abilities refresh on a sorry rest, even the rare spells, and the others are at will. Instead of a Cleric dishing out heals you have a Tactician giving out buffs, instead of a Wizard casting spells most rounds you have a Scholar discerning weaknesses (although people can sacrifice Ability Score increases to access spells, one of the hack's spells 1/SR per ASI sacrificed). But it's designed around the Short Rest as the primary limitation.

Vaz

2017-12-09, 06:57 PM

Yea, miss me with that weak ****.

Just do the simple thing of nearly everytbing having the LCD of only 1/long rest. Anything that is 1/short rest becomes 3/short rest.

Y'all can do one with your fractions to work out spell slots for 9th level spells etc.

Keep it Simple, Stupid. Emphasis on Stupid for this current discussion.

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-09, 07:13 PM

Slots for 9th levels spells: 0. Alternatively I saw a decent ability called Mystic Arcanum.

I did say that you'd really need to design around SR as being the main test, which 5e hasn't. I am, the only thing that refreshes on long tests in WaR are hit points and Hit Dice, the idea is that character's will push on until low on hit dice, taking sorry rests whenever they can skate the hour (which in my games well be about once an encounter, but that's fine because everybody is on Short Rests and hit dice are the only real way to heal in the hack).

Vaz

2017-12-09, 07:26 PM

Mystic Arcanum, also 1/LR.

Mate, stop talking.

Tanarii

2017-12-10, 12:59 AM

You can also solve this by everyone being a short rest character.
Or you can play the game with a mix of mostly no rest characters, short rest characters, and long rest characters, and they can manage their resources appropriately and decide on the kinds of rests they can afford based on necessity and availability.

IMC & IMC it's very common for the party to decide to push on after a short rest, and a LR character that's been blowing through spells has to suck it up and fall back on cantrips. Especially common for blasty Wizards and Sorcerers to end up in that situation. Which is fine. They shine early, and other classes shine later in the adventuring day.

It probably makes a difference that generally speaking IMC, a long rest means retreating from the adventuring site and end of session, which both gives the remaining enemies in the area time to prepare for the next incursion, and ends the night. But even if you continue the session after a long rest or do sessions multiple per long rest, what's going to happen in-world if they break for 8 hours before continuing should have an impact on player thinking.

Lappy9001

2017-12-10, 02:55 AM

And yes, while that's true, it still doesn't mean I wasn't annoyed when it wasn't signposted as 'Gunslinger from PF updated' when it was homebrew. It was a complete waste of my time even looking at it. But that's just me being salty because it wasn't what I wanted.I just don't know how anyone could look at it and not immediately gather that it's a 5e conversion of the Pathfinder gunslinger.

Also, hoo boy, some pretentious CR opinions in this thread. Goodie.

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-10, 03:30 AM

Mystic Arcanum, also 1/LR.

Mate, stop talking.

Yes, but my point was that the ability to get 6+ levelled spells outside of the normal spellcasting system exists. Even better idea: high level spells die in a fire, we take the other five levels and build around them.

Arkhios

2017-12-10, 04:55 AM

I just don't know how anyone could look at it and not immediately gather that it's a 5e conversion of the Pathfinder gunslinger.

Gunslinger is just a name, and many different kinds of Gunslingers have existed throughout gaming history. Paizo didn't invent the concept. It's possible Anonymouswizard had quite different expectations BEFORE he looked at it, and frankly, it doesn't say it's a conversion, so it's possible to assume otherwise.

Vaz

2017-12-10, 05:23 AM

Yes, but my point was that the ability to get 6+ levelled spells outside of the normal spellcasting system exists. Even better idea: high level spells die in a fire, we take the other five levels and build around them.
Which all sound like a lot more work than tripling short rest resources and making them Long Rest, so that everyne can manage their entire resources, without being limited to a DM not putting out the required amount of encounters, in which case you can't manage resources you dont have access to.

Arkhios

2017-12-10, 06:17 AM

How about every long rest caster chooses two spells from each spell level (up to 5th level spells) all of which they can cast X times per short rest (X depending on your class level), and cut down the rest of available spell slots to half, leaving them to recover at long rest.
All spell slots from 6th to 9th would recover only on long rest.

Like this:
3rd level wizard (or 5th level paladin) would choose two 1st level spells and two 2nd level spells, which s/he could cast a total of two times per short rest. In addition, s/he would have two 1st level spell slots per long rest and one 2nd level spell slot per long rest.

(Kind of like 4th edition divide between Encounter Powers and Daily Powers)

Tanarii

2017-12-10, 10:21 AM

Also, hoo boy, some pretentious CR opinions in this thread. Goodie.
Pretentious. THAT'S the word I was looking for to describe Critical Role. Thanks! :smalltongue:

Vaz

2017-12-10, 01:46 PM

Arkhios

2017-12-10, 02:13 PM

Sounds like a lot more work than triple SR Resources and make them long rest.

Remember houserules, Keep it simple, stupids.

You know, while I'm aware that "KISS" is a relatively common internet thing, someone might take that as an offense. You know what happens to those who offend people in these forums? That's right, they get warnings, or if it happens often enough, might even get banned. Just sayin'

Vaz

2017-12-10, 02:25 PM

Eh. Accidental 's' on the end, that was unintentional, I shall edit that.

But no, I don't see it fitting to remove the ending of a common saying, simply because you're over complicating something simply to be contrary. KISS is the system, KISS is what it means.

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-10, 05:17 PM

Maybe we're overcomplicating it because we're talking about a copy where some people enjoy overcomplicating it? I like GURPS, I'm not going to decide of something is worth having based on simplicity alone.

FWIW 5e doesn't seem to have followed KISS when it was designed, why should our projects? If I get enjoyment out of overcomplicating stuff then that's fine.

Now I'm off to see of there's still time for somebody to get my this new GURPS Spaceships book for Christmas.

FilthyLucre

2017-12-10, 07:10 PM

Demonslayer666

2017-12-11, 03:09 PM

This is the DM going against what the rules say. Checking OP's post history, he already has issues with the Rules Lawyer (who is also a DM), but also said that he vetted the Homebrew beforehand. Given that the DM has a loose grasp of what the rules say, and is turning round to players and nerfing their characters, and expecting to be respected in return. The players did it right - DM, no this is what the rules say. To which the OP threw a strop, ****ed the game off, stole a players kit. He's the biggest power games I've ever seen (****ing doubt that one sunshine).

Read the thread. TL:DR, DM is ****. Players aren't brilliant, but DM is the cause of it with continued antagonism. DM shouldn't walk away because of gaming incompatability, DM should probably find a new game where he's not intentionally hostile with his players.

I have read the thread. I have no idea what you are trying to get at, you aren't making any sense. :smallconfused:

The OP (DM) is trying to use the rules, and avoid homebrew. The only homebrew vetted was the use of gunslinger, and the DM did not nerf the character, he took their word for it. The players are trying to introduce more homebrew with drinking potions and casting spells, and the DM doesn't want to allow it. Also, the DM doesn't like being ridiculed from a problem player over every little ruling. The other players are also disliking the disruptions.

That is not an antagonistic DM.

KorvinStarmast

2017-12-11, 11:07 PM

FWIW 5e doesn't seem to have followed KISS when it was designed, why should our projects? For D&D, as it has evolved over the years, and bloated, 5e is KISS in action.

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-12, 04:15 AM

For D&D, as it has evolved over the years, and bloated, 5e is KISS in action.

D&D is not GURPS or World of Darkness (or for that matter Chronicles of Darkness) which use the same core system in every edition with changes (such as swapping which stats determine Health and Fatigue and fiddling with points costs for GURPS 4e). 5e is radically different to 4e, which was radically different to 3.X (which is really all one edition in D&D terms, but two separate editions to most other games), which was radically different to 2e, which was actually a simplification of 1e, which was a reworking and expansion of 0e (BD&D, probably my preferred edition, was a reworking of 0e without any expansion).

If 5e had followed KISS we'd have had four classes instead of tweleve, or at the very least no subclasses. We'd also likely have no subraces, although that's a minor thing. Twelve classes are in there because people complained when they suggested four classes. Here is what 5e would be like if it followed KISS (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules). 2D8HP has said that this is the kind of 5e he'd run, and I agree with him (although I'd run Lamentations of the Flame Princess before even Basic 5e). As it is 5e is a bloated mess of options it doesn't need and sacred cows the design team aren't allowed to slaughter.

Vaz

2017-12-12, 05:17 AM

I have read the thread. I have no idea what you are trying to get at, you aren't making any sense. :smallconfused:

The OP (DM) is trying to use the rules, and avoid homebrew. The only homebrew vetted was the use of gunslinger, and the DM did not nerf the character, he took their word for it. The players are trying to introduce more homebrew with drinking potions and casting spells, and the DM doesn't want to allow it. Also, the DM doesn't like being ridiculed from a problem player over every little ruling. The other players are also disliking the disruptions.

That is not an antagonistic DM.

Which is about as rosy a position you could paint, completely ignoring the facts put in the OP and his search history. DM is immature seeking validation rather than advice, arguing from a position of ignorance. Players aren't saints, but the DM is unwilling to incorporate things the players want. It is the DM's choice to include them, but when it comea to different playing styles, you might as well ask a Call of Duty player to have fun while playing ARMA or Reality Project in the way those gamers want to play. Majority rules.

You tried.

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-12, 08:09 AM

Which is about as rosy a position you could paint, completely ignoring the facts put in the OP and his search history. DM is immature seeking validation rather than advice, arguing from a position of ignorance. Players aren't saints, but the DM is unwilling to incorporate things the players want.

Somewhat. It really seems to be somewhere between the two points you and Demonslayer have laid out. As it always seems to be, reality lies between the two extremes.

On the one hand, for an inexperienced GM the OP has been remarkably generous, and has allowed more than they can probably handle. This is a classic newbie mistake, and shutting down concepts hard but being generous during gameplay is generally the better alternative to allowing content and then changing it on the fly (although, I will note, in the Gunslinger situation the OP made exactly the right call, going for game flow over an argument). An experienced GM can take a Witch, a Paladin of Athena, a Hexblade Warlock, an Assassin, and a Cleric of Pelor and then make it all work together, but it takes a lot of experience to be able to role with either diverse characters or homebrew classes effectively, I've met maybe one GM I'd trust with both.

Note that the player swapping out bonus spell lists because they think one is better and not going with the reasonable suggestion of just pick the other subclass (which I think has some really nice abilities that would make up for being slightly more MAD) was being a bit unreasonable, but it's the sort of change that's fine with DM consent, and bugging the GM to let you start at a higher level is just asking for an annoyed person running the game (especially with a more experienced one, who might have balanced the game around you being first level and now has to rework everything).

OP's two main points seem to be 'my players won't except that I don't use Matt Mercer's houserules, even when it's actually a feat', and 'I'm being compared to Matt Mercer even though I'm not aiming for that style', both of which are legitimate. His complaints about the power gaming player less so, the only thing I think was really wrong there was the 'won't start below 3rd level' bit.

KorvinStarmast

2017-12-12, 08:17 AM

D&D is not GURPS or World of Darkness (or for that matter Chronicles of Darkness) which use the same core system in every edition with changes (such as swapping which stats determine Health and Fatigue and fiddling with points costs for GURPS 4e).
5e is radically different to 4e, which was radically different to 3.X (which is really all one edition in D&D terms, but two separate editions to most other games), which was radically different to 2e, which was actually a simplification of 1e, which was a reworking and expansion of 0e (BD&D, probably my preferred edition, was a reworking of 0e without any expansion). Having played them all but 4e, I can only observe that your comparison to other games is irrelevant. I also played a bit of Runequest as well as Chivalry and Sorcery. GURPS is one of those things that we were all excited about when it came out, but sadly my gaming group was breaking up at the time ... people move. As to "radically different" I'll offer that you are engaging in some overstatement.

If 5e had followed KISS we'd have had four classes instead of tweleve, or at the very least no subclasses. You can play the game from level 1 to 20 using just the basic rules and the basic DM rules. (That won't make WoTC any money, however).

As I said, for D&D, as it has morphed over the years, 5e is KISS. As more official material is published, the bloat is bound to happen just as with the previous editions.

Tanarii

2017-12-12, 10:37 AM

If 5e had followed KISS we'd have had four classes instead of tweleve, or at the very least no subclasses. We'd also likely have no subraces, although that's a minor thing.
5e is the simplest D&D except for B/X or BECMI, and the latter doesn't count either once you add in skills and weapon mastery.

5e is thoroughly KISS by D&D standards, and moderately so by RPG standards in general.

For example compare Torchbearer, which is a shorter rule book but far more complex resolution system. Or Dungeon Classics, which purports to be old school Basic-like dungeon crawling, but actually has a rule set at least as complex as 5e, if not more so.

DW / AW is a bit simpler, although it takes a while to wrap your head around narrative play if you're used to causal play instead.

But Rifts / Palladium System, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Dark Heresy/Only War, any WoD spinoff, Runequest., Shadowrun, GURPS. All far more complex than 5e.

Beelzebubba

2017-12-12, 10:49 AM

War_lord

2017-12-12, 12:20 PM

Tanarii

2017-12-12, 12:36 PM

5e trickles in new abilities slowly enough that, assuming you start at level 1, a player who's at all trying to learn their class won't get overwhelmed.
Not really. They come lightning fast, and there are quite a lot of them. It typically takes 2 sessions (3 hrs each) to get to level 3, and only another 3 to get to level 5. And that's if you adventure with all parties of your level, none higher! Which effectively power levels you. After the point of 5 sessions and level 5, you've got a huge amount of class abilities and not very much play time experience. Many times, brand new players are still struggling to remember the basics of combat and skill checks and what the difference is between their ability score vs their ability score modifier is, and (if using the terrible online WotC character sheet) find stuff on their character sheet.

So yeah, new players definitely get overwhelmed, at least in terms of making what are (from an experienced players perspective), even ones trying to learn.

I recently had a really-has-ADHD D&D-newbie who struggled with the Moon Druid class. It burned him out a bit on the game, unfortunately. But he's a freaken genius, so it gave him a lot of 'pieces' to play with, which was good. What was bad was he slowed down the game, especially combat, drastically, because he wanted and needed to be able to consider all his options every round. He got major decision paralysis because he wanted to understand the consequences of each spell, and carefully spend them to the best tactical advantage. If I rush him, he felt he wasnt able to make the choices<->consequences link properly in such a complex class under pressure.

Conversely the brand-new-to-D&D Wizard player does fine, even though he's not as genius, because he made an Evoker. He happily picks a spell or cantrip quickly and blows things up, uses rituals in appropriate places, and quickly made important decisions on the fly both in and out of combat. He had no problem making the choices<->consequences link on the fly and under pressure, both in his class and in general.

I chose these two examples to illustrate: All in all, I think matching class to payer depends far more on personality than newness.

GlenSmash!

2017-12-12, 12:52 PM

D&D is not GURPS or World of Darkness (or for that matter Chronicles of Darkness) which use the same core system in every edition with changes (such as swapping which stats determine Health and Fatigue and fiddling with points costs for GURPS 4e). 5e is radically different to 4e, which was radically different to 3.X (which is really all one edition in D&D terms, but two separate editions to most other games), which was radically different to 2e, which was actually a simplification of 1e, which was a reworking and expansion of 0e (BD&D, probably my preferred edition, was a reworking of 0e without any expansion).

If 5e had followed KISS we'd have had four classes instead of tweleve, or at the very least no subclasses. We'd also likely have no subraces, although that's a minor thing. Twelve classes are in there because people complained when they suggested four classes. Here is what 5e would be like if it followed KISS (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules). 2D8HP has said that this is the kind of 5e he'd run, and I agree with him (although I'd run Lamentations of the Flame Princess before even Basic 5e). As it is 5e is a bloated mess of options it doesn't need and sacred cows the design team aren't allowed to slaughter.

I only played one session with the Basic rules, back before the 5e PHB came out. I regret not doing that whole campaign with just the Basic rules.

I mean, I love some of the options in the PHB, and some from XGtE even more. But I do sometimes miss the simplicity of guy who fights, guy who steals, guy who spells, and guy who heals.

2D8HP

2017-12-12, 01:49 PM

...Here is what 5e would be like if it followed KISS (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules). 2D8HP has said that this is the kind of 5e he'd run, and I agree with him (although I'd run Lamentations of the Flame Princess before even Basic 5e)... .

:annoyed:

HEY! Don't bring me in...

....oh wait, I totally did post that.

'cause it's true.

:redface:

I also found Call of Cthullu much easier to "Keeper" than Advanced D&D was to "Dungeon Master"

*typeface that indicates shrugged shoulders*

Having played them all but 4e, I can only observe that your comparison to other games is irrelevant. I also played a bit of Runequest .
Me too!

:smile:

I had more fun playing '77 rules D&D, but I'm very fond of RuneQuest.

as well as Chivalry and Sorcery....

:eek:

You played Chivalry & Sorcery?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/41/46/f6/4146f6220eaa9360c920f2136bac4a11.gif

Demonslayer666

2017-12-12, 02:04 PM

Waterdeep Merch

2017-12-12, 02:43 PM

Not really. They come lightning fast, and there are quite a lot of them. It typically takes 2 sessions (3 hrs each) to get to level 3, and only another 3 to get to level 5. And that's if you adventure with all parties of your level, none higher! Which effectively power levels you. After the point of 5 sessions and level 5, you've got a huge amount of class abilities and not very much play time experience. Many times, brand new players are still struggling to remember the basics of combat and skill checks and what the difference is between their ability score vs their ability score modifier is, and (if using the terrible online WotC character sheet) find stuff on their character sheet.

So yeah, new players definitely get overwhelmed, at least in terms of making what are (from an experienced players perspective), even ones trying to learn.

I recently had a really-has-ADHD D&D-newbie who struggled with the Moon Druid class. It burned him out a bit on the game, unfortunately. But he's a freaken genius, so it gave him a lot of 'pieces' to play with, which was good. What was bad was he slowed down the game, especially combat, drastically, because he wanted and needed to be able to consider all his options every round. He got major decision paralysis because he wanted to understand the consequences of each spell, and carefully spend them to the best tactical advantage. If I rush him, he felt he wasnt able to make the choices<->consequences link properly in such a complex class under pressure.

Conversely the brand-new-to-D&D Wizard player does fine, even though he's not as genius, because he made an Evoker. He happily picks a spell or cantrip quickly and blows things up, uses rituals in appropriate places, and quickly made important decisions on the fly both in and out of combat. He had no problem making the choices<->consequences link on the fly and under pressure, both in his class and in general.

I chose these two examples to illustrate: All in all, I think matching class to payer depends far more on personality than newness.
I like this post. I've always had the opinion War Lord's espousing, but recently I've noticed there are some players that simply pick classes that don't work for them. Namely extremely complicated classes or concepts in the hands of slow or novice players.

Here's a horror story for you- in a game I played in last year, we had three brand new players out of six. Out of the three remaining, one was still a newbie overall with less than a year's experience and another has never really been good at roleplaying games (across four different systems I've personally run him through). I've had more newbies than this, but in this particular group? A.) Attempted PvP, B.) Hours long debates on story decisions, C.) Pursuing side quests and derailing over the main plot for months and often due to the desires of only one or two players, D.) Splitting the party incessantly, E.) And here's the one that drove me insane- our average combat encounter would take about 3 hours to finish.

All three newbies were issues, and two were playing full casters. A cleric and a sorcerer, specifically. The other was playing a thief rogue that was given access to WAY too many consumable items. The pseudo-newbie was playing a sorcerer at first before moving onto a custom half-caster, his first time ever playing real casters. And the guy that's never really been good at RPG's was handling a bard.

Combat was atrocious. The newbies wanted to argue with everyone, on every turn, about what their next actions should be. They were actually annoyed that I would complete my turns in seconds instead of upwards of 10-15 minutes, and that's not hyperbole. I had zero interest in debating the merits of my combat actions and think it's metagamey besides. The other two players fed into this nonsense, and the DM, fairly new to the role himself, was overwhelmed and had no idea how to rein in the players. I helped as best I could to sort of side DM and coach/lead the team, and we eventually reached the lofty heights of finishing each combat encounter in a single hour.

To the DM's credit, only three of us that were exasperated due to this. The other four were having a blast, so we mostly commiserated alone while trying to figure out how to make things better.

I feel like restricting the newbies more could've prevented some of these headaches. While I've seen newbies play complex full casters and wow me with how well they've picked it up, there was also this monster headache campaign where players with zero system mastery or understanding made everything a complete slog.

Tl;dr: I think you're right, you've just gotta shoot from the hip and guess whether a new player is capable of handling complexity before letting them pick something that's going to end up frustrating.

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-12, 03:33 PM

5e is the simplest D&D except for B/X or BECMI, and the latter doesn't count either once you add in skills and weapon mastery.

5e is thoroughly KISS by D&D standards, and moderately so by RPG standards in general.

For example compare Torchbearer, which is a shorter rule book but far more complex resolution system. Or Dungeon Classics, which purports to be old school Basic-like dungeon crawling, but actually has a rule set at least as complex as 5e, if not more so.

DW / AW is a bit simpler, although it takes a while to wrap your head around narrative play if you're used to causal play instead.

But Rifts / Palladium System, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Dark Heresy/Only War, any WoD spinoff, Runequest., Shadowrun, GURPS. All far more complex than 5e.

Lasers and Feelings, Fate, Mistborn Adventure Game, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, about ten different games I own because they were free on Drive Thru RPG, Mongoose Traveller, arguably Open d6 and Basic Roleplay, Rocket Age. See, I can list a bunch of games that are less complex than 5e, so let's stop the '5e isn't 3.X, therefore it is simple'.

5e brough in two points of complexity for the one (skill points). It has significantly more classes than it needs (with sublasses the number if four, without them you might be able to stretch it to 6-8).

Now, there's nothing wrong with a game that doesn't follow KISS. I like both GURPS and Anima, and those are as crunchy as anything.

I only played one session with the Basic rules, back before the 5e PHB came out. I regret not doing that whole campaign with just the Basic rules.

I mean, I love some of the options in the PHB, and some from XGtE even more. But I do sometimes miss the simplicity of guy who fights, guy who steals, guy who spells, and guy who heals.

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with the extra options, but there's a certain beauty in the simplicity that comes from actually following KISS.

Vaz

2017-12-12, 04:32 PM

3.5 is laughing at you from its corner.

5e is DnD for Dummies. Not sayng just because it's simple its bad, that, but it's really simple to play comparatively.

Tanarii

2017-12-12, 04:47 PM

They were actually annoyed that I would complete my turns in seconds instead of upwards of 10-15 minutes, and that's not hyperbole.Ouch. That's gotta hurt. I mean, if the entire table is cooperatively participating in deciding on each other's actions and enjoying it, that's fine. if not my style. But if anyone is finding it boring there's a bit of a problem there.

Personally I like to run combat very fast paced. Too much so for some people, that feel rushed and off balance. That's kinda the point, but if players really aren't enjoying it, it's not so good.

Lasers and Feelings, Fate, Mistborn Adventure Game, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, about ten different games I own because they were free on Drive Thru RPG, Mongoose Traveller, arguably Open d6 and Basic Roleplay, Rocket Age. See, I can list a bunch of games that are less complex than 5e, so let's stop the '5e isn't 3.X, therefore it is simple'.I picked major systems.

5e brough in two points of complexity for the one (skill points). It has significantly more classes than it needs (with sublasses the number if four, without them you might be able to stretch it to 6-8).It reduces skills to a manageable number, reduced proficiency to a simple on/off state, and has a single resolution system. It's skill, weapon proficiency, and general resolution system is one of the simplest among major systems.

You've got a point on 12 core archetype classes being quite a lot though, By class/archetype systems. Rifts has more but the Palladium system is just a mess. Fun, but a mess.

What generally makes D&D a complex system is spell-profusion, since each one is its own little packet of special rules.

Now, there's nothing wrong with a game that doesn't follow KISS. I like both GURPS and Anima, and those are as crunchy as anything.I agree complex systems are fine for those who enjoy them. As are particularly simple ones.

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-12, 05:10 PM

I picked major systems.

But you never actually said that (also, Fate is certainly major, as is BRP and Traveller, MAG and Open d6 are extremely arguable on that point). Yes, major systems tend to be weighted towards heavier ones, but in the major systems I really hear about today 5e is really in about the middling end (might be due to who I hang out with though).

It reduces skills to a manageable number, reduced proficiency to a simple on/off state, and has a single resolution system. It's skill, weapon proficiency, and general resolution system is one of the simplest among major systems.

The bolded part has been true since 3.X. Otherwise yeah, although manageable is dependent on the system (Rocket Age has 12, GURPS has 400, both work for the system rather well). I prefer LotFP to 5e though, and see the former as simpler.

You've got a point on 12 core archetype classes being quite a lot though, By class/archetype systems. Rifts has more but the Palladium system is just a mess. Fun, but a mess.

Yeah, I was looking over Anima and found that with it's five magic systems, all it's classes bar three really did have a reason to be there. In short they had:
-Nonpowered warrior guy
-Warrior with a little bit of ki
-Warrior with a little bit of ki, but dodges instead of parries (should be removed)
-Warrior with a little bit of summoning (banishment)
-Warrior with a little bit of summoning (control, could have been combined with the above)
-Ki expert
-Unarmed expert who mixes ki with warrior stuff
-Thief
-Assassin (could easily be combined with the Shadow class)
-Ranger (thief/warrior)
-Shadow (assassin/warrior)
-Wizard
-Warrior with magic powers
-Summoner
-Warrior trained in summoning
-Psychic
-Warrior trained in psychic powers
-Psychic wizard
-The guy with no specialties

The game then goes on to say that, for 99% of character concepts one of those classes should be sufficient. No need for a Noble class, the system is flexible enough to represent a noble with any of those! The same for priests, divine champions, and whatnot. If we go down to two power systems we end up with at most 8 classes if we pick ki and summoning, and at least six if we pick magic and psychic powers.

What generally makes D&D a complex system is spell-profusion, since each one is its own little packet of special rules.

Sure, and there's nothing wrong with that. I like wizards in Anima, with their lists of up to 50 spells, but I don't think the way it's handled in D&D really works.

I agree complex systems are fine for those who enjoy them. As are particularly simple ones.

Yep, we can all get along. There's nothing wrong with wanting to add a bit more complexity to 5e, there's some places it could slot right in (weapon reach for instance, making a difference between 'sword range' and 'dagger range'). But there's also nothing wrong with wanting to remove it. However, when I am designing an entirely new set of classes designed to be compatible with only two of the PhB classes (and one of them is still getting a slight adaption to the hack) then the question of what approach is simpler doesn't matter.

2D8HP

2017-12-12, 05:32 PM

3.5 is laughing at you from its corner.

5e is DnD for Dummies. Not sayng just because it's simple its bad, that, but it's really simple to play comparatively..
I don't think that "5e is D&D for Dummies", but I will cop to being someone who started with the TSR 48 page Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set rules in 1978 (which I read three times in a row before I felt I got it) and finds 3.5 WD&D very much intimidating.

I think a lot depends on who you are.

If you're a player who wants a big catalog of options, you want one thing, if you're a player who's worried about someone with more system mastery overshadowing your PC than you want something else, and if you just want to get to the part where the GM says "What do you do?" as quickly as possible, then you want something else, as does a GM who has to adjudicate the whole thing.

As a player, I find 5e great fun to play and I appreciate the extra options in the SCAG and [I]Xanathar's, [/] but (as been aluded to earlier) as a DM/GM I simply find full "bells & whistles" 5e WD&D too intimidating to manage (and I've a hard time even coming up with a setting that even has Dragonborn not be terrifying to humans).

Fortunately most ever edition has a place for house rules (and house ignoring of rules).

Also before this thread, I never heard of "Matt Mercer".

Beelzebubba

2017-12-12, 07:55 PM

I disagree with that. I know that the prevailing wisdom is that you should push new players to take a "babby's first" character class with limited options like a Fighter or Warlock. But my opinion is that if a new player is allowed to play the character they want to play (and any brand new player is thinking in terms of character not "build"), they'll pick up their mechanics quickly enough. Whereas if they're pushed into something they find dull, they might decide D&D isn't for them.

Most of the table never played before, and handle their characters just fine. I was speaking about her specifically, rather than about her being new.

Hell, they did a one-shot with some other podcast group, and half of the CritRoll cast showed up. Marisha even blew it there, with a much lower level Cleric. She took Shield Master as a feat, and assumed that she could just 'take a reaction' to get no damage from an area effect spell. Didn't read the feat at all where it said 'after a successful save' part, and argued with Matt about it there because she was so embarrassed. She's just incapable of focusing long enough to read anything all the way through.

So, when I say she's 'unmedicated ADHD' I'm pretty damn serious. I'd put money on it, having grown up with it in my family and having seen a bunch of people before and after meds. She hits almost every note, from the inattentiveness, fidgeting, constantly checking her phone, emotional volatility, low frustration tolerance, inability to maintain focus to be ready for her turn, etcetera.

MarkVIIIMarc

2017-12-12, 09:01 PM

KorvinStarmast

2017-12-12, 09:18 PM

You played Chivalry & Sorcery? We played whaterver a DM/GM wanted to run. :smallbiggrin: As I was running EPT at the time, I was happy to play anything. (I am still looking for my old C&S book and I can't find it. It's killin' me).

90sMusic

2017-12-12, 11:38 PM

If you allow a player to use a custom class (or archetype) without stipulation, you are consenting to following all of the rules laid out by that custom class or archetype.

Allowing them to play this choose this class, design their character, set everything up to play this, then allow them to play it... Then only later do you say "OH WAIT, i'm going to change the rules for how this class works because I don't like it for some inane reason" is bad form.

Costing a player their entire turn to reload is crazy. Gunslinger is already loaded with penalties like having to reload in the first place, costing them an attack, and misfire chance, and getting the ammo, and so on and so on. They also have to spend their whole action to fix their gun if it does jam.

Your players have good reason for grabbing torches and pitchforks.

Pelle

2017-12-13, 04:31 AM

Personally I like to run combat very fast paced. Too much so for some people, that feel rushed and off balance. That's kinda the point, but if players really aren't enjoying it, it's not so good.

Sorry for the tangent, but do you have any tips for how to convince slow players to want to speed up?

I have some players who like to consider every option, like a chess match, which can take a lot of time. I guess it stems from that they want to hit 'pause' in-game, and consider what their character really would do in that situation, without themselves having time pressure. If I cut their action short or skip their turn they feel cheated.

My main problem is that combats eats too much of the sessions, and I also personally prefer the players to feel like they are in a chaotic situation. If the combats become a slow simulation of what the characters would do, irrespective of the players, it feels a bit anti-climatic to me.

Beelzebubba

2017-12-13, 07:12 AM

Sorry for the tangent, but do you have any tips for how to convince slow players to want to speed up?

I have some players who like to consider every option, like a chess match, which can take a lot of time. I guess it stems from that they want to hit 'pause' in-game, and consider what their character really would do in that situation, without themselves having time pressure. If I cut their action short or skip their turn they feel cheated.

My main problem is that combats eats too much of the sessions, and I also personally prefer the players to feel like they are in a chaotic situation. If the combats become a slow simulation of what the characters would do, irrespective of the players, it feels a bit anti-climatic to me.

Ask other players offline if they're unhappy with the pace, if they're fine with it, consider accepting some of this as just how this table wants to run.

Otherwise:

Tell each player 'you're up next' before their action, see if that helps.

If not, then it's a matter of analysis paralysis, and there are ways to help.

Encourage them to spend some out-of-game time to write down a few 'principles' or 'game plans' they would do. That exercise, in and of itself, may help them develop some form of character-driven tactical planning that will help them short-cut their thinking. Things like 'protect the Gnome at all costs' or 'take out ranged opponents first' can be big time-savers on their thinking. Also have them figure out what they won't do, or will avoid doing.

For example, my Druid always starts with tilting the odds in our favor with some form of control spell like Entangle. If we lost initiative and the opponents are already among us, he goes to Faerie Fire or Flaming Sphere. He then takes cover and looks for other reactive things to do - like Lesser Restoration or Healing Word. If there's nothing else to do, he plunks away with Produce Flame or his longbow.

Pelle

2017-12-13, 07:47 AM

Thanks for the suggestions, but I was more interested in help with the why (it is good to stress time), than the how (to implement it).

Everyone in the group agrees that it would be good if combat was faster. In practice however, some of my players like gaming the mechanics, wanting to pay attention to every little detail, while others are good at making quick (character driven) decisions. Not really sure if these players mind the extra time others spend, but I am convinced that the overall experience will be better for everyone if the slow players can tolerate getting stressed.

I could try bringing a timer, but not sure if it works well if I can't get buy-in to it first.

Tanarii

2017-12-13, 10:42 AM

Thanks for the suggestions, but I was more interested in help with the why (it is good to stress time), than the how (to implement it).
I'm not sure what you mean by the why. You mean, how to convince players that they should feel stressed?

Point out its combat. Their characters are stressed, need to make fairly quick decisions, and keep it snappy enhances verisimilitude. It also prevents boredom during other players turns, allows more to happen in a single session, and makes the session more memorable and exciting. If they wanted to play a turn based RPG they should go find a a turn based RPG to play.

Okay maybe not that last one. 😂

Pelle

2017-12-13, 11:12 AM

I'm not sure what you mean by the why. You mean, how to convince players that they should feel stressed?

Point out its combat. Their characters are stressed, need to make fairly quick decisions, and keep it snappy enhances verisimilitude. It also prevents boredom during other players turns, allows more to happen in a single session, and makes the session more memorable and exciting. If they wanted to play a turn based RPG they should go find a a turn based RPG to play.

Okay maybe not that last one. 😂

Thanks, yes, convincing them that fast combat will be worth it in the end, even though it is unpleasant to feel stressed in the moment.

I guess I just need some coaching by people who have experience in getting players on board with fast paced combat.

Some (of my players) would say D&D is a turn based RPG.

Tanarii

2017-12-13, 12:24 PM

Some (of my players) would say D&D is a turn based RPG.For sure, that's why I was being sarcastic. :)

Of course, D&D is a cooperative turn based game. It sucks to play those slowly. It sucks to play a LAN-based or Hotseat game of Civ/Alpha Centari slowly, because you're constantly waiting on other people to make their slow-ass chess-like moves. Same goes from most strategic & tactical board games, for that matter. They're BORING if you have to sit there while someone dithers over their turn on their turn*. Instead of making a general strategic plan before the game starts, making a tactical plan on other people's turns, then adjust those both on the fly for what happened right before your turn starts.

That's totally possible to do in D&D too. Make strategic plans before combat, make tactical plan for your move on other people's turns, and be ready to adapt quickly when your turn comes up.

IMO of course. But, like, a strong opinion.

*If Axis & Allies takes more than 3 hours to wrap up a game, you're doing something wrong. :smallyuk:

2D8HP

2017-12-13, 12:35 PM

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-13, 12:50 PM

Maybe make a house rule that during combat all discussion of "tactics" be in-character shouting?

I'll likely use this next time I run a game. Sure, it can be fun to discuss complex tactics in the middle of combat, but games are even more fun when you impose rulings like this in my experience (I think I once played in a 'no tactics discussion after initiative is rolled' game, and it actually worked pretty well. A few IC calls for other players to do certain actions was permitted, but the game began to run fast and we learnt to quickly react to each other).

2D8HP

2017-12-13, 01:01 PM

I'll likely use this next time I run a game......
:cool:

Just so long as there's no interruption of riffing on Buckaroo Banzai, Galaxy Quest, and (especially) Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

One must have the right priorities after all.

:amused:

GlenSmash!

2017-12-13, 01:19 PM

Maybe make a house rule that during combat all discussion of "tactics" be in-character shouting?

I find that when it's a players turn In combat, If I sum up the previous players turn, then ask "What do you do?" it cuts down on the tactic talk (and other talk)

Example.

DM: "Bill, Jim's fighter just slew one of the orcs, there are three more orcs left. What do you do?"

Those 4 simple word put a little onus on making a decision over having a discussion.

It doesn't solve all my problems, but it helps a lot.

Tanarii

2017-12-13, 01:39 PM

If it's "Theater of the Mind" I could see it taking some time because of asking/answering questions about who/what is where, but if you're using miniatures I have a hard time imagining what could take that long.IMX Battlemats are almost always slower until you get to quite complex and big battles. It encourages players to try and play the most tactically precise & exact moves.

They're still useful despite that, because players are less confused at to what's going on, for anything beyond very simple conflicts. (I didn't even realize how confused they were until I had a discussion with them). But even with the confusion, TotM is faster.

Maybe make a house rule that during combat all discussion of "tactics" be in-character shouting?IMO that's the best way to play in general. If it's not something directed at the DM describing an action, if you say it, your character says something approximately like it.

Players should be sure to tell the DM they're pulling a PC aside before they start table talk about sending the henchmen ahead to spring traps, or calling them red shirts. :smallamused:

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-13, 01:48 PM

.
:cool:

Just so long as there's no interruption of riffing on Buckaroo Banzai, Galaxy Quest, and (especially) Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

One must have the right priorities after all.

:amused:

I mean, only the last one is banned at my table, because it'll stop the game dead for half an hour at least. Anything else is fair game :smalltongue:

mephnick

2017-12-13, 02:10 PM

.
:cool:

Just so long as there's no interruption of riffing on Buckaroo Banzai, Galaxy Quest, and (especially) [I]Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

I think if it was legal to kill players that overuse pop culture references I would probably do it. I mean, I'm getting close as it is.

I don't mind a light hearted table, but I think I might actually die if someone sings Brave Sir Robin during what should be a stressful retreat in the face of death once more.

Demonslayer666

2017-12-13, 02:33 PM

IMX Battlemats are almost always slower until you get to quite complex and big battles. It encourages players to try and play the most tactically precise & exact moves.

They're still useful despite that, because players are less confused at to what's going on, for anything beyond very simple conflicts. (I didn't even realize how confused they were until I had a discussion with them). But even with the confusion, TotM is faster.

IMO that's the best way to play in general. If it's not something directed at the DM describing an action, if you say it, your character says something approximately like it.

Players should be sure to tell the DM they're pulling a PC aside before they start table talk about sending the henchmen ahead to spring traps, or calling them red shirts. :smallamused:

I have found the exact opposite is true. It's only faster for small combats, which are fast by default. If you try and do a large combat with TotM, you are going to be redescribing what's going on way too often. With a battle map, I can plan out my next turn without any description.

TotM always makes me feel cheated as a player. The DM arbitrarily says no or yes, at their whim. I had the DM look at me and say, you don't get Sentinel OA because you aren't next to her, despite me saying specifically that I am protecting the cleric. When important information is left out, it's pretty damning.

Tanarii

2017-12-13, 02:39 PM

I have found the exact opposite is true. It's only faster for small combats, which are fast by default. If you try and do a large combat with TotM, you are going to be redescribing what's going on way too often. With a battle map, I can plan out my next turn without any description.You're an exceptional player then, because you plan ahead. Most players who haven't been specifically trained NOT to wait until their turn, and then try to carefully play the battlemat like a board game, taking much longer than if they don't have a board to look at. Even confused by TotM, players generally make decisions faster on their turn.

OTOH It sounds like I'm giving TotM too much credit. I've shifted away from using it to using basic diagrams and occasionally a full battlemat, because the confusion with TotM was FAR more than I realized. My players told me they often felt like they were fighting in darkness, not just missing a full top-down view of the battle, but not really understanding what was going on. Even though they made decisions faster.

Hyde

2017-12-13, 02:50 PM

You're an exceptional player then, because you plan ahead. Most players who haven't been specifically trained NOT to wait until their turn, and then try to carefully play the battlemat like a board game, taking much longer than if they don't have a board to look at. Even confused by TotM, players generally make decisions faster on their turn.

OTOH It sounds like I'm giving TotM too much credit. I've shifted away from using it to using basic diagrams and occasionally a full battlemat, because the confusion with TotM was FAR more than I realized. My players told me they often felt like they were fighting in darkness, not just missing a full top-down view of the battle, but not really understanding what was going on. Even though they made decisions faster.

I started out mostly with TotTM, but gradually shifted to battlemats and minis (there was a transition with a truly monstrous white board for a table I rather liked). Since my primary game is online, the mats are kind of necessary, since I don't have hand gestures and other nonverbal means of communicating what comes out of my face. I haven't noticed it as a factor that really slows down our play, we have... other issues, but I can see what you mean.

2D8HP

2017-12-13, 06:16 PM

I started out mostly with TotTM, but gradually shifted to battlemats and minis (there was a transition with a truly monstrous white board for a table I rather liked). Since my primary game is online, the mats are kind of necessary, since I don't have hand gestures and other nonverbal means of communicating what comes out of my face. I haven't noticed it as a factor that really slows down our play, we have... other issues, but I can see what you mean.

:confused:

How do you use mats on-line?

Beelzebubba

2017-12-14, 09:24 AM

I could try bringing a timer, but not sure if it works well if I can't get buy-in to it first.

That has never worked for me in (way too many) years of gaming.

Demonslayer666

2017-12-14, 01:24 PM

You're an exceptional player then, because you plan ahead. Most players who haven't been specifically trained NOT to wait until their turn, and then try to carefully play the battlemat like a board game, taking much longer than if they don't have a board to look at. Even confused by TotM, players generally make decisions faster on their turn.

OTOH It sounds like I'm giving TotM too much credit. I've shifted away from using it to using basic diagrams and occasionally a full battlemat, because the confusion with TotM was FAR more than I realized. My players told me they often felt like they were fighting in darkness, not just missing a full top-down view of the battle, but not really understanding what was going on. Even though they made decisions faster.

I've seen those players before, and generally attribute that to not paying attention. All 3 of us DM's encourage people to pay attention even when it's not your turn. OTOH we have a very deliberate player that takes more time than everyone else.

TotM certainly has it's place. We use it quite often, and it works very well for simple combats. A little confusion is fine - the players have to trust the DM to a certain extent. :smallsmile:

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-14, 02:10 PM

I've seen those players before, and generally attribute that to not paying attention. All 3 of us DM's encourage people to pay attention even when it's not your turn. OTOH we have a very deliberate player that takes more time than everyone else.

TotM certainly has it's place. We use it quite often, and it works very well for simple combats. A little confusion is fine - the players have to trust the DM to a certain extent. :smallsmile:

A problem with paying attention is that whether or not somebody is paying attention can be hard to tell. Several times I've played closer attention to the combat when browsing this forum then when I've had my phone away (as a note, I also use my phone as a tool to not pay attention when the focus is on other party members, but I do generally respond when spoken to). Other people I've known use their phone to get away with not paying attention.

My general compromise is that I don't ban phones when running, although I do ban laptops, but I ban earphones and games. Browsing the internet is fine, replying to a message is fine, but if it's something that 'can't' be put on hold for five minutes while you take your turn it's banned.

I've noticed that I tend to prefer TotM and also prefer smaller combats, I've done large ones and it's never been as fun to me, although I'll generally pull out a pad of paper and mark positions on a rough map as well. It's a nice compromise, enough information that there's no 'where is everybody' but the fiddly squares get to stay away and everything remains 'that seems reasonable'.

Yes, PCs start moving further and further as combat drags on, but I'm alright with that as it just ends up making combat faster when people begin getting bored with it.