Rule adherence in streamed games/podcasts

[willdaBEAST]

I was curious what if any concensus this community has towards rules and mechanics for streams or podcasts?

Generally I'm fairly tolerant and recognize that the emphasis is on entertainment rather than worship of RAW, but pretty much every show I've watched or listened to has some glaring rule issues.

With Adventure Zone they clearly were playing loose and probably didn't even fully read the rules, so it stopped bothering me when Griffon gave Merle his spell attack bonus to heals instead of his wisdom mod or let him cast prayer of healing as an action.

For Dice, Camera, Action, Perkins plays loose with a lot of the rules concerning amount of spells cast in a round and takes other liberties, but that doesn't overly bother me due to the focus on characters.

However, I was watching an early episode of season 2 of Acquisitions Inc the C-Team though and got pretty annoyed when a monk Rosie asked the warlock to hex con, so stunning strike would be saved against with disadvantage. This is a level 1 spell, that they still don't understand (to be fair the campaign is not combat heavy) and under their interpretation would make stunning strike even more devastating to single opponents. I'm not sure if it's the combination of slight meta-gaming, clearly misinterpreting the difference between ability checks and saves, or that this was all with a spell that's been used since day one of their campaign, but that got me thinking:

Do popular streams have any kind of responsibility to get the rules right?

[strangebloke]

No.

I've never played at a table that wasn't using some kind of houserules, in fifth edition or any other. Streamed games are no different. Critical Role is pretty consistent... with respect to Matt Mercer's own rules.... which the players can't remember to save their lives.

Players have a responsibility to understand that every table is different, and that just because Vax'ildan can cast two spells in a turn, doesn't mean you can.

Go through your character build with your DM in session 0, and ask about how things work. Before you level up, tell him the cool idea/combo you have. If he doesn't want things to work that way because he thinks its overpowered or silly, he can tell you at the time.

Somebody should write a standard questions list to poise to GM when approaching a new table. Maybe I will.

[dejarnjc]

Their responsibility is to entertain themselves and I guess their audiences, as long as straying from the rules doesn't bother too many people (playing or watching) then I think they're fine.


Personally though, I don't mind straying from the rules at all as long as the rulings are consistent and fair.

[Unoriginal]

Do popular streams have any kind of responsibility to get the rules right?

No. As much as it can be annoying to see misconceptions in play, streams hold no responsibilities for that kind of thing.

I got immensely annoyed when the DM of "Roll 20 Present: Tomb of Annihilation" doubted that it was possible to auto-succeed an ability check with a DC of 10, but it being a stream changes nothing.

Steamers, popular or not, should not be held on a pedestal. They're just as much players of the game as anyone, and gods know how RPG players make mistakes like that all the time.

[Armored Walrus]

Considering most have thousands to tens of thousands of views and only a dozen or two nitpicky rules complainers, I'd say they probably are getting the balance about right.

We all get annoyed when they get one wrong, but my usual mental response (I try to never get involved in Youtube comments...) to anyone nitpicking a streamed GM's rulings is "go run your game then, don't worry about this one."

Honestly I get far more annoyed at players making bad combat decisions than I do at GMs getting rules wrong.

[molten_dragon]

Personally I have no issues with streamed games using houserules and such. I enjoy the Glass Cannon Podcast a lot and they have some fairly important houserules that they use.

On the other hand, I do feel like sometimes rule mistakes can take some fun out of listening. I feel like a lot of the danger the PCs find themselves in in GCP comes from rule mistakes that the players/DM make.

[KOLE]

Agreed on the above, streamers have no obligation to follow RAW. If new players pick up D&D and are disappointed to find a misconception with their DM compared to how Matt Mercer runs things, that’s a good intro to dealing with house rules.

I loved TAZ, but eventually it did kind of irk me that it was clear they wouldn’t ever really die or face a challenge Griffon wouldn’t walk them through. So I started playing my own game and enjoying TAZ purely for the story instead of as a model of a good D&D story.

I miss the Department of Balance, 5E TAZ. None of their new playthroughs have been anywhere near as interesting.

[Theodoxus]

I'm halfway convinced that Hex is suffering from the Mandela Effect. I know when we first started playing, we thought it affected saves, and it was great. Then, sometime around Christmas 2014, it was re-read and it only affected ability checks.

Somewhere, there's an alternate universe where Hex is amazingly OP... but not here... damn it, not here...

[SiCK_Boy]

Streamed games don't have to adhere to the rules as written, but I certainly would prefer if more of them would do so, especially the ones getting some support (directly or indirectly) from the game's makers.

One thing I would really appreciate would be if these games were explicit in what house rules they use (either with a link to a website listing the various rules), as well as sharing their character's mechanical data (basically, make your character sheets publicly available).

[Armored Walrus]

To be fair, I think most of them attempt to do so. But anyone who's run a game has made a rules error, or overlooked something, or made a ruling that didn't fit RAW because it was more important to keep the game moving than to stop and look it up. So unless they start scripting these shows, why would you expect their games to look any different? Their primary purpose is to entertain, their second, tangential purpose is to promote the hobby. You aren't going to attract flocks of new players to the game by streaming arguments about whether someone who's invisible is hidden. Let them experience that joy when they run into the local hard-ass DM down at the local AL game...

Hell, Gygax himself didn't adhere to RAW. His usual answer to rules questions was "How did you handle it at your table?"

[Malifice]

I'm halfway convinced that Hex is suffering from the Mandela Effect. I know when we first started playing, we thought it affected saves, and it was great. Then, sometime around Christmas 2014, it was re-read and it only affected ability checks.

Somewhere, there's an alternate universe where Hex is amazingly OP... but not here... damn it, not here...

I have an Homebrewed invocation [Evil Eye] that lets it impose disadvantage to the save as well as the ability check if they fail a Charisma save when targeted by the Hex (Requires 5 levels in Warlock).

[Cespenar]

Might sound a bit patronizing here, but I'm glad to see that the usually pedantic forum hive-mind can dial it down when necessary, and just enjoy something as it is. At least looking at the responses here so far.

Because I believe that the more famous podcasts/streams are doing a huge amount of good at "normalizing" role playing games in the society's view.

[Armored Walrus]

Might sound a bit patronizing here, but I'm glad to see that the usually pedantic forum hive-mind can dial it down when necessary, and just enjoy something as it is. At least looking at the responses here so far.

Because I believe that the more famous podcasts/streams are doing a huge amount of good at "normalizing" role playing games in the society's view.

Well, actually....

[Vogie]

It really depends on the familiarity of the product.

One of the things I loved about the beginning of Godsfall podcast was that the DM & the players weren't pro at 5e, but would figure it out during the game. If they ever used the wrong vocab or used a 3.P justification, they'd add a buzzer to indicate when something went askew, then a satisfying Ding when everyone got the right information.

[Tanarii]

Confusing which things work with attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws is very common. In particular, thinking that Hex works against saving throws.

Another common confusion is anything action economy in general, and bonus action spellcasting in particular.

Some people aren't rules-oriented gamers. Some people don't pore over rules and look up the itty bitty rules interactions and discuss them on forums until they have most of them memorized. And even then we still make mistakes, or disagree.

Not everyone can easily or quickly learn things, or can hold most of an entire rule book in their head on top of everything else they need to keep upstairs. Nor does everyone care to try for something that's supposed to be, in their mind, "fun". That's not a bash on anyone, it's just reality, everyone has strengths and weaknesses and different desires. We've even got posters on these forums who are frank about the 5e rules being too much for them.

I know the non-spell rules backwards and forwards. And I still make mistakes. Furthermore, at the table whenever there is a question of rules, I make a ruling and tell the table "we can look up the actual rule later". So despite being one of the most RAW oriented AND rules knowledgable around, no false modestly, if I streamed you'd still find things that poked your "she's ruled wrong" buttons. And from what I've seen, many streamers and 5e DMs in general don't make any particular attempt to run a strict RAW oriented game or be particularly rules knowledgable. And more power to them.

[DMThac0]

I'm entertaining the idea of streaming my game, this thread is really interesting and something I hadn't considered.

I have a homebrew HP mechanic that is a live test, so I know people will be confused at first. I spend more time on narrative than I do dice rolls, and I rarely pick up my books. When it comes to the rules of the game, I tend to lean toward RAI over RAW, mostly because I don't have time for rules lawyers. I trust my players when they tell me a thing does something, I have them tell me what a spell does, I have them do a lot of the talking, it's their game after all. I've had my players correct me when I've misunderstood something, or made a blatant mistake, and I've given them the same in return.

Is it simply a mild annoyance when a mistake is made during a show, or is it more of a cognitive dissonance (the brain just trips over itself at the mishap)?

[War_lord]

The only D&D podcast I'm into in Godsfall, and in the early episodes if a rule comes up the DM doesn't know, he cuts away to a post-production voiceover of him reading the actual rule for the listener. If he didn't do that I'd still love the podcast (it's an entertainment product after all) but I do like the value placed on keeping it straight.

If you're streaming your game for entertainment purpose, the rules only matter as much as your players care.

[bobofwestgate]

I'm entertaining the idea of streaming my game, this thread is really interesting and something I hadn't considered.

I have a homebrew HP mechanic that is a live test, so I know people will be confused at first. I spend more time on narrative than I do dice rolls, and I rarely pick up my books. When it comes to the rules of the game, I tend to lean toward RAI over RAW, mostly because I don't have time for rules lawyers. I trust my players when they tell me a thing does something, I have them tell me what a spell does, I have them do a lot of the talking, it's their game after all. I've had my players correct me when I've misunderstood something, or made a blatant mistake, and I've given them the same in return.

Is it simply a mild annoyance when a mistake is made during a show, or is it more of a cognitive dissonance (the brain just trips over itself at the mishap)?

This is exactly why I clicked on the post. My group is considering streaming our games and starting a podcast to discuss gaming.

[willdaBEAST]

Might sound a bit patronizing here, but I'm glad to see that the usually pedantic forum hive-mind can dial it down when necessary, and just enjoy something as it is. At least looking at the responses here so far.

Because I believe that the more famous podcasts/streams are doing a huge amount of good at "normalizing" role playing games in the society's view.

Frankly, I'm surprised too. This was not intended as a bait thread, but I can see how that could easily happen.

Thanks for all the responses everyone.

One of the reasons I started this thread is because streams/podcasts are what got me to try DnD. I'm the type of person who then will read the rules in addition to whatever I absorbed from the games I've watched/listened to, but I do agree that the benefit of raising the profile of DnD outweighs whatever rule confusion that might arise.

The one point I want to make though is that with a lot of the examples I listed, short of Perkins in DCA, these don't seem like home-brew rules. They aren't necessarily consistent and I think stem from misunderstanding of the rules. As others have pointed out, that's always going to happen and I think is an integral part of the game. As a player or DM, questioning the mechanics of a spell or ability and then quickly having a ruling is fundamental DnD imo. Watching people argue doesn't make compelling DnD, but I think some of the streams could do a better job of addressing these moments later on. For Acquisitions Inc the C-Team, they even have a post-game wrap up episode, to me that would be the perfect time to address whether something is a home-brew rule or a misinterpretation.

[Armored Walrus]

One of the reasons I started this thread is because streams/podcasts are what got me to try DnD. I'm the type of person who then will read the rules in addition to whatever I absorbed from the games I've watched/listened to, but I do agree that the benefit of raising the profile of DnD outweighs whatever rule confusion that might arise.

Streams are only a negative to the extent that it can generate players who have a certain expectation of how the game works, that might be at odds with how the DM they are gaming with will actually run the game. But that's nothing new - there's always been a necessity to be able to match player with compatible DM - and more people interested in D&D means more potential DMs to choose from. Edit: and more potential players for DMs to choose from.



they even have a post-game wrap up episode, to me that would be the perfect time to address whether something is a home-brew rule or a misinterpretation.

The only reason they would use broadcast time to address that is if they think rules accuracy would have any impact on the level of viewership. Most streamers I've watched, who allude to the rules-lawyers in comments at all, generally dismiss them as trolls. Rightly so, I think. It's always easier to criticize someone else's game than to go run or play in your own. It's also easy to spot every error when you're watching, with none of the mental overhead that comes with actually playing or running a game, with the PHB open on your lap. And even then, it's a tiny, tiny minority of viewers who are upset enough by the errors to bother commenting on it.

People forget that the rules don't exist so that you can play the rules. They exist so you can play the game. Hell, how many people put all their tax money under Free Parking in Monopoly, and then give it to the player that lands on Free Parking? That's not even in the rulebook at all. But it's something that is widely considered to be a rule because enough folks felt it enhanced the fun of the game, and no one is streaming Monopoly, so no one can scream at them that it's wrong.

Edit: I'm probably wrong with both the statement that no one is streaming Monopoly and the one that none of the viewers of said hypothetically non-existent streams are screaming about how they're playing wrong....

[DMThac0]

Edit: I'm probably wrong with both the statement that no one is streaming Monopoly and the one that none of the viewers of said hypothetically non-existent streams are screaming about how they're playing wrong....

Ok, so on sundays, I'll be streaming full contact Monopoly!


The only reason they would use broadcast time to address that is if they think rules accuracy would have any impact on the level of viewership.

I actually considered this, would it be helpful to address the rule discrepancies as an educational bit rather than an apology?

[Armored Walrus]

I actually considered this, would it be helpful to address the rule discrepancies as an educational bit rather than an apology?

I think streamers who stream to educate people about how the game works are a different animal, and already have their audience. I could be wrong.

But I can say for myself - I don't watch Critical Role or Roll20 Presents to learn how the rules of the game work. If Mercer or Koebel took a segment at the end of their show to address rules errors or house rules, I'd probably skip that part of the stream. I watch them because both of them, in different ways, give good examples of how the "craft" of DMing works. How to adjust your prep to the players' decisions, how to deliver an evocative description, how to bring a story element to random player chaos, how to wow the players with a big reveal. You know, all the actually important parts of DMing that aren't taught in any WOTC book. Any monkey can read and then apply rules if they don't mind spending so much emphasis on getting the rules right that the rest of their game sucks.

Did you ever watch a sporting event and afterward go "Wow! That was an exciting game. Everyone adhered so well to the rules!"? No, you watch it for the drama and the suspense and the athleticism and the pageantry, and the tradition, and you only complain about the rules errors to the extent that a bad call reduces your team's chance to win. :P

Edit: Stream your game, do your best to play by the rules, but make it a good enough game that only the trolls care if you get a rule wrong, and you'll be fine. Just don't ever read the comments under your videos.

[DMThac0]

If Mercer or Koebel took a segment at the end of their show to address rules errors or house rules, I'd probably skip that part of the stream ... You know, all the actually important parts of DMing that aren't taught in any WOTC book.

That makes a lot of sense, and echos a lot of how I feel about it as well.

[Tanarii]

But I can say for myself - I don't watch Critical Role or Roll20 Presents to learn how the rules of the game work. If Mercer or Koebel took a segment at the end of their show to address rules errors or house rules, I'd probably skip that part of the stream. I watch them because both of them, in different ways, give good examples of how the "craft" of DMing works. How to adjust your prep to the players' decisions, how to deliver an evocative description, how to bring a story element to random player chaos, how to wow the players with a big reveal. You know, all the actually important parts of DMing that aren't taught in any WOTC book. Any monkey can read and then apply rules if they don't mind spending so much emphasis on getting the rules right that the rest of their game sucks.
Which is exactly what makes me complain about streamed games. When they're like Critical Role: really bad at the craft of DMing choose to DM in a way that would be boring to play in their game , to the point where their own players seem bored. That may not be bad at the craft of DMing, but it certainly isnt any thing I want DMs to be learning

Well, that and I dont find watching a well DMd game entertaining. Theyre fun to play in, not watch. And games that are DMd in a way that makes them fun for some people to watch would be boring to play in.

[Malifice]

I'd stream my games, but our group have a very... Australian way and sense of humor (read: we curse like sailors).

[Armored Walrus]

Which is exactly what makes me complain about streamed games. When they're like Critical Role: really bad at the craft of DMing choose to DM in a way that would be boring to play in their game , to the point where their own players seem bored. That may not be bad at the craft of DMing, but it certainly isnt any thing I want DMs to be learning

Well, that and I dont find watching a well DMd game entertaining. Theyre fun to play in, not watch. And games that are DMd in a way that makes them fun for some people to watch would be boring to play in.

Eh, I'm by no means a slave to Mercer or Koebel or Perkins. But I can pick up something from each of their strengths, and learn something to avoid from each of their weaknesses. My point was, the rules of the game aren't on the list of things I'm interested in learning from them. I can do that on my own by, ya know, reading the books. But WOTC publishes no books on dramatic timing, for example, which, whether you agree with how Mercer runs a game or not, is certainly a talent he possesses, and something I can learn while also being entertained.

[Armored Walrus]

I'd stream my games, but our group have a very... Australian way and sense of humor (read: we curse like sailors).

There's an audience for everything. ;)

[Tanarii]

But WOTC publishes no books on dramatic timing, for example, which, whether you agree with how Mercer runs a game or not, is certainly a talent he possesses, and something I can learn while also being entertained.
I think pacing and timing are among Mercer's biggest problems. He's terrible at them.

[JakOfAllTirades]

I tend to run (and play) D&D as close to raw as possible; I don't care for house rules. Most of them are illegitimate offspring of Dunning-Kruger and Sturgeon's Law. I get a lot new (to my table) players who learned the game by playing at other tables instead of actually reading the rules, and a lot of them come with an attitude that their old table's house rules are actually the "one true way" to play D&D. Or they don't even realize that they're house rules at all and they don't believe until someone shows them the freaking book, which most of them have never bothered to read.

Streams and podcasts like this are only going to create more confusion among the semi-literate gamer set.

[Armored Walrus]

I think pacing and timing are among Mercer's biggest problems. He's terrible at them.

Which is still beside the point of the discussion. Regardless of whether we share the same opinion regarding a particular streamer's style, my point is the fact of whether they strictly adhere to the rules or not is likely the smallest determinant as to whether or not anyone wants to watch their streams.

[Armored Walrus]

Streams and podcasts like this are only going to create more confusion among the semi-literate gamer set.

Or potentially expose them to enough different tables that they'll understand the experience is different from table to table before they ever show up at yours. More exposure to other DMs is probably the surest way to combat "one true way" thinking. Ideally it would happen by actually playing at multiple tables, but people get their fixes in different ways.

[DMThac0]

...a lot of them come with an attitude that their old table's house rules are actually the "one true way" to play D&D. Or they don't even realize that they're house rules at all...

Streams and podcasts like this are only going to create more confusion among the semi-literate gamer set.

There comes a point in time in every DM's career that they run into the "one true way" argument with another player, house rules or not. Playing by the book you will run into different types of arguments about how those rules should be interpreted, hence the RAI vs RAW debates that spring up all over the place. While you may have players come to the table with preconceived notions created by their previous DM, from watching the various streams, or even listening to the various podcasts, that doesn't mean they're wrong. This is simply an opportunity for you, as a DM, to teach them a different way of playing the game, one that adheres to the word of the books rather than a narrative that drives the rules.

Look at Perkins, the guy works for WotC, he's admitted to ripping out NPCs from modules because he doesn't agree with them. Does that mean he's doing it wrong? Mercer created his own homebrew class, does that make him a bad DM? Wheaton can't roll above a 1, does that make him a bad player?

Ok...that last one is not a valid argument.

You're entitled to run your game however you see fit. However the question at hand is whether the streamers/podcasters should feel beholden to the rules. If all of them adhered to the rules implicitly, is it possible that they would all eventually blend together lacking any individuality, or would we still get the same diversity that we see currently?

[willdaBEAST]

I actually considered this, would it be helpful to address the rule discrepancies as an educational bit rather than an apology?

This is key to me. We've focused more on the negative of whiny trolls complaining in the comment section, but why can't this be an open and productive dialog? When I'm DMing, if I make a mistake, I want to hear it. Not necessarily in the game if it's too disruptive or would require too much backtracking, but like Armored Walrus has written, as a DM you're juggling a lot of things simultaneously. It's extremely easy to overlook something, skip a turn in initiative, misinterpret a rule, etc. I want to know when that happens and I encourage my players to have an open dialog about it.

My approach would be similar to your quote Therverian, I would turn it into a post-game discussion or exploration of the rules. I think it'd be extremely beneficial to show some of the potential abuses of rules or how quickly the balance of power can shift between players when you aren't consistent.

Instead of: "you noobs are bad and should feel bad. Hex doesn't affect saves!", you could write something like: "I know you're primarily focused on putting on an entertaining show, but if you allow hex to affect saves, that might have serious repercussions with ability or spell combinations that you haven't accounted for:"

Personally, I feel like this could be a resource if it's controlled and respectful. Again, not for every stream and I agree that the vast majority of people could care less about rule adherence.

Walrus, your Monopoly analogy is actually a great one. Adding a pot that someone gets when landing on free parking greatly prolongs the game. It's something on it's face that looks fun and dynamic, but contributes to what most people hate about Monopoly, the game lasts forever.

[willdaBEAST]

You're entitled to run your game however you see fit. However the question at hand is whether the streamers/podcasters should feel beholden to the rules. If all of them adhered to the rules implicitly, is it possible that they would all eventually blend together lacking any individuality, or would we still get the same diversity that we see currently?

This I can't agree with. While house rules and such add another dimension to the game, I don't think they have nearly as much influence on the tone of a game as things that were mentioned earlier like: dramatic timing, engaging narratives, fully flushed out NPCs and player participation. If anything, I'd argue that it would make it easier to recognize the differences between DMing styles. You'd have fewer variables and for example if you had 4 DMs run the same module, I think their own unique expression would be much clearer. The same would be true with the play style of the players.

That said, I really hope every stream doesn't run the same module.

[Armored Walrus]

Walrus, your Monopoly analogy is actually a great one. Adding a pot that someone gets when landing on free parking greatly prolongs the game. It's something on it's face that looks fun and dynamic, but contributes to what most people hate about Monopoly, the game lasts forever.

Hence it's absence from the actual rules of the game. ;)

I'm not saying don't have the "Rules Q&A" portion of your stream if you're going to stream. I'm just saying I expect that the audience for one part of the stream is not likely to be the audience of the other. I suspect 90% of your viewers will tune out once you get to that point. There's a chance, though, that having that section does allow you to, at least in part, defuse the commenters before they comment. Although from my experience, most of those comments are put up while the viewer is viewing, not after they've reached the end of the stream and realized that you literally addressed and explained their concern, if only they had had the patience to watch to the end before spewing their criticism.

Godsfall doing it mid-show is, in my experience, a unique example. Most of these streams don't do that much post-production. Note, though, that my primary exposure is to the Twitch streamers and youtubers. I don't do D&D podcasts much.

[Unoriginal]

To each table its rules, to each table its mistakes. No matter how many people are watching the table.