Is it me?

[Aussiehams]

Does anyone else find it annoying when groups playing D&D on podcasts/Twitch don't know the rules?
It seems to me that if you are making money off the game, you should know how It works.
I really don't want to be a rules lawyer, or "That guy", but I feel like I would hate to play with some of these people.
Also, characters that are mechanically rubbish for the sake of "character". I just dont see myself playing in a game like that.

Am I being harsh and a grumpy grognard?

[Kane0]

Seems pretty reasonable to expect entertainment to know its subject matter.

Edit: I wouldnt automatically hate an unoptimised character myself, but i would definitely find one that is completely useless to be distasteful or annoying.

[pwykersotz]

It really depends on the skill sets the group brings to offset not knowing the rules.

I've been watching Critical Role for the first time, and at least in the first 50 episodes both Matt Mercer and the players make tons of rules mistakes. However, I really enjoy their acting and role-playing. This has held my interest despite any rules snafu's or even some cringy moments in the role play.

Also, I'm pretty sure everyone just has different tolerances for what rules are important. I don't care so much about the mistakes that I've seen with concentration saves not being applied properly, but it's quite frustrating when a spell is not looked up properly or used properly, and I've used that spell and know exactly what it does.

So no, it's not just you, but some groups might have an x factor that lets you see past that stuff. Or maybe not.

[returnToThePast]

There's a balance. I certainly don't expect everyone to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules, so it doesn't bother me if they have to look up a spell description or improvise rules for more obscure scenarios such as climbing on a larger creature. On the other hand, I do expect the players to know the core mechanics and the abilities of their characters. By the end of the first session, they shouldn't need to ask where to find their attack modifier or spell save DC. The DM should know or be able to quickly look up weapon/armor stats, lighting, cover, and so on.

[Dork_Forge]

Strongly agree, it's okay if one of the players is new or if you're watching something from back when the game was new but nowadays? You're sponsored and getting revenue from all sorts of places and you can't be bothered to make sure you are playing the game correctly?

What's more bothersome is that new players often look to podcasts or streams for how the game is, which simultaneously pumps their expectation of roleplay and muddies their knowledge of the rules.

Some other things I'd like in general:

-Make the character sheets available to the audience so we can actually follow along instead of playing a guessing game sometimes

-make it clear what homebrew you're using, I've never watched CR, but I've had to correct multiple players that a potion is not a bonus action because of them

[prototype00]

I recall in the heady days of 4e, I was watching Penny Arcade play a game of Dark Sun with the new monk class. Man, Scott Kurtz, the guy playing the monk forgot stuff left and right, it was painful to watch. He didn't even flurry of blows half the time.

When I mentioned it on a forum, I got mobbed by what I assume was a press-gang of people recruited from the PA stalwarts, as I had never seen them on that particular forum before, all baying like Dickwolves for my blood.

Anyway, yes, people who play for entertainment should know the rules, I feel.

[ShinyRocks]

For Critical Role in particular, they ported their first campaign characters across from Pathfinder so they did have a lot of changes to learn/account for. I think that excuses it to some extent.

And I think it's always good to be cautious of yelling 'That's not how that spell works!!' (something I'm guilty of) when someone is trying to do something creative, and the DM is letting them. It's always the DM's call and I'm generally in favour of interesting ideas over strict RAW.

But, yes, in a play podcast/youtube video/whatever, I want them to know what they're doing. There was a podcast that I wanted to love, queer people playing D&D - queerness and D&D are basically my favourite things - but they were ALL so bad and had no idea of even the basic mechanics that I found it unlistenable.

On the other hand, Outside Xbox/Outside Xtra on youtube have regular D&D games, and they're mostly not very good and mostly don't understand the ins and outs of D&D. But their DM is so good at working with them and they're all so likeable and having so much fun that it's great fun to watch - helped by the fact that it's not trying to be a very dice-heavy, tactics-focused game in the first place.

[DevilMcam]

I don't think it's reasonnable toto ask anyone to know all the rules by heart, beside we all use various degrees af rulling or homebrews that may even difer from table to table with the same players.

when there is a rule question at our tale the DM make a call on the spot (that may or may not be retconnedin the futures) and the game moves on while someone goes to find the relevant rule and rules are discussed out of game.

Now this isn't something you want to see on those entertainement games so they most likely have the gentlman agreement to not contest DM rulling on screen at talk about it off screen.

As far as unoptimised characters go, it's mostly fine as long as it is within the range of what the party expects and not disruptive.

a Vanilla tiefling trickery cleric in a party full of sharpshooter BM fighter is fine.
If the cleric only does Prayer of healing in combat that's not.

[FabulousFizban]

yes ://////////

[OldTrees1]

Yes, I do feel annoyed when I see it happen.

However D&D grants the DM the authority to change the rules. If it is working for their table, it doesn't matter if they use 2+2=5.


Characters that are "mechanically rubbish" for the sake of character can be enjoyable.
1) Few people play Pun Pun or Nup Nup so everyone is somewhere on the continuum between them. And 5E's default balance allows for a lot of suboptimal choices before you risk being underpowered.
2) Some weaknesses are as fun to play as some strengths. Sometimes these are personality weaknesses, but other times these are mechanical weaknesses.

[iTreeby]

How often do you see posts on this website that have a stance that is unknowingly against RAW? For me, it's all the time, and I know that I make mistakes too. If a podcast needed flawless play from the players and the DM, I know a guy who could possibly qualify, but when I imagine a party of him, and DMd by him.... I'm not sure it would be intertaining...

[Dork_Forge]

Yes, I do feel annoyed when I see it happen.

However D&D grants the DM the authority to change the rules. If it is working for their table, it doesn't matter if they use 2+2=5.


Characters that are "mechanically rubbish" for the sake of character can be enjoyable.
1) Few people play Pun Pun or Nup Nup so everyone is somewhere on the continuum between them. And 5E's default balance allows for a lot of suboptimal choices before you risk being underpowered.
2) Some weaknesses are as fun to play as some strengths. Sometimes these are personality weaknesses, but other times these are mechanical weaknesses.

I feel like the context needs to be applied more here, this isn't somebody's home game, if they're going to change rules then they should make it clear what's been changed for the audience to know that this is not the game as written. There's also a difference between DM rulings and just getting rules wrong, one is certainly okay (with disclaimers) the other is just shoddy work they're getting paid for.

[Willie the Duck]

Does anyone else find it annoying when groups playing D&D on podcasts/Twitch don't know the rules?
It seems to me that if you are making money off the game, you should know how It works.
I really don't want to be a rules lawyer, or "That guy", but I feel like I would hate to play with some of these people.
Also, characters that are mechanically rubbish for the sake of "character". I just dont see myself playing in a game like that.

Am I being harsh and a grumpy grognard?

Well first and foremost, not giving a rip about the rules is the most grognardy of things possible.

As for characters that are mechanically suboptimal for the sake of "character," I don't see anything wrong. I know how to make an optimal character. I certainly don't need to watch anyone else play one. I'd much rather see an interesting series of events play out (including characters failing, or being played sub-optimally, or the like).

As to larger questions of 'should podcasters generally know their subject material?,' and 'would it be better for a podcast about playing D&D stick close to the written rules (or at least call out the specific divergences they will be using)?,' I'd generally answer yes to both. I think a podcast with both those qualities is a better product.


And I think it's always good to be cautious of yelling 'That's not how that spell works!!' (something I'm guilty of) when someone is trying to do something creative, and the DM is letting them. It's always the DM's call and I'm generally in favour of interesting ideas over strict RAW.

I am absolutely in favor of podcasts or anyone else reinforcing the idea that the rules (or, for chrissakes, 'RAW') is not a goal unto itself, but an avenue towards the real goal of having a good time.

[KorvinStarmast]

Does anyone else find it annoying when groups playing D&D on podcasts/Twitch don't know the rules? yes. But as they had ported in from PF (see above) one can understand their confusion. I think Mercer made an error in not starting from level 1 and moving forward, but heck, it's his game, his group, they seem to enjoy what they are doing.

It seems to me that if you are making money off the game, you should know how It works.
That would be professional.

Also, characters that are mechanically rubbish for the sake of "character". I just dont see myself playing in a game like that. That can be a lot of fun. Depends on the table and the other players.

Am I being harsh and a grumpy grognard? You don't need to be an old grumpy person to not like sloppy production.

When I mentioned it on a forum, I got mobbed by what I assume was a press-gang of people recruited from the PA stalwarts, Scott has a non trivial fan following. PvP fans might have had their knives out.

[OldTrees1]

I feel like the context needs to be applied more here, this isn't somebody's home game, if they're going to change rules then they should make it clear what's been changed for the audience to know that this is not the game as written. There's also a difference between DM rulings and just getting rules wrong, one is certainly okay (with disclaimers) the other is just shoddy work they're getting paid for.

I hear you, but they are successfully playing D&D. It is the game even if it is not RAW. So they are successfully demonstrating D&D. That helps me calibrate and mellow the reaction I have as a result of the frustration / annoyance I feel when I see it.

Now it would be different if it was something like Tabletop when they did an instructive demo of Dread. There the intent was not just to demo, but also to teach the game. In those cases I would have a harsher reaction to homebrew. (Which I think Tabletop achieved)

[EggKookoo]

However D&D grants the DM the authority to change the rules. If it is working for their table, it doesn't matter if they use 2+2=5.

This is pretty much it. I don't mind if streaming DMs have houserules. I wouldn't mind them calling them out as such, though.

I'm going through campaign 2 of Critical Role and they do make some mistakes here and there (most often forgetting to apply advantage or disadvantage). He also has some house rules. He uses a "surprise round" kind of thing, which I don't object to because I do the same. He seems to treat nat-20s on checks and saves as auto-success, but also also seems to only call for a check when there's a possibility of success or failure, so in most cases a nat-20 would succeed regardless. Again, mirrors my own approach. I know he has his own raise dead rules and a few other things.

But for the most part, I don't watch streaming D&D games for rules accuracy. The entertainment for me is in the character interaction and general gameplay.

[Keltest]

There are three books worth of rules to memorize just in the core set. Expecting somebody to stop their stream or whatever for 5 minutes while they haul out a book to check something is maybe not realistic. I generally recommend the same principle to people who are DMing for the first time: If youre uncertain, make something up. If somebody knows the correct rule, cool. If not, interrupting the fun for 5 minutes to check something is not ideal. After the session, pull out your book, talk to the group, say 'Hey, I made a ruling here for the sake of expedience, but the book says X. Which version do you prefer?" and then adjust the following sessions.

[Pex]

I find it annoying. If it's a player learning, really trying to learn, I let it go. When it's the DM I'm screaming in my head. I test the waters a bit. I speak up with the correction and listen to the reaction. If it's appreciated I won't say something every time, but I will once in a while. That I still have to is frustrating, but since I'm allowed to rules lawyer I get over it and I try not to over do it with the lawyering. I'm letting the rule of fun reign supreme. If I can't be the lawyer, which fortunately has not happened yet, then I need to decide for myself if I can get over the continuous breaking of rules. Is the game more fun to play than my annoyance of that's not how it works.

[Aussiehams]

Home rules and DM rulings are fine, and can make things much more interesting. I have no problems with that.
I'm more thinking when players don't know the basics of their PCs. One in particular has been playing for months, and still doesn't know how sneak attack works on her rogue. It's her first game, but 8 sessions in I find it frustrating.
And I'm not really bothered by suboptimal characters, I was just in a bad mood.

[OldTrees1]

Home rules and DM rulings are fine, and can make things much more interesting. I have no problems with that.
I'm more thinking when players don't know the basics of their PCs. One in particular has been playing for months, and still doesn't know how sneak attack works on her rogue. It's her first game, but 8 sessions in I find it frustrating.
And I'm not really bothered by suboptimal characters, I was just in a bad mood.

I understand how you feel. It is frustrating. It is annoying. If it weren't entertainment it would be none of my beeswax. Despite being entertainment it might (might) still be unjustified annoyance. However that does not make it less frustrating.

Is it you? Yes, but it is also me. Realizing this helps.

[Segev]

It's clearly just you. As evidenced by the fact that nobody in this thread has expressed agreement with your concern.

Sorry, when a topic title is that open-ended, I just feel the need to answer it directly. Obviously, it's not just you, as evidenced by exactly the opposite of what I said in my joke-text being the case.

[Imbalance]

What rules?

Think of it less as you being a spectator in a regulation match and more like witnessing a new form of narrative storytelling. It should also be noted that there is a difference between being paid as a professional and being sponsored as an exhibitor, and who better to represent DnDBeyond, for example, than inept people who need to rely on the service it provides? But like, say, Harry Potter, the narrative trumps the rules of the world, and the story can be compelling enough that most people don't notice the discrepancies. Don't take my word for it, just watch a Cinema Sins review.

I've only started watching since quarantine began, and while I'm not bothered by the inconsistent rulings, I can't really say I'm a fan of the format. I guess if you want to be entertained by someone playing something with rigid governance, there are way more video games to tune into. For me, I'd rather be playing than critiquing someone else's play.

[Galithar]

It's certainly frustrating for me, but not a deal breaker. Add long as the game and story is entertaining I can overlook rules mistakes.

My favorite podcast is High Rollers and I still get frustrated everytime someone makes an opportunity attack while blind (or effectively blind) or casts counter spell without line of sight on the caster.

They also acknowledge some of their mistakes and while they don't retcon things, they do occasionally explain them and let the viewers know what the rule should have been the next week. After discussing it off screen I assume.

Rules don't need to be perfect for podcasts/live streams. Especially since there is no reason to expect to limit them from homebrewing or making rulings on the fly just because their game is public.

[jjordan]

Does anyone else find it annoying when groups playing D&D on podcasts/Twitch don't know the rules?
It seems to me that if you are making money off the game, you should know how It works.
I really don't want to be a rules lawyer, or "That guy", but I feel like I would hate to play with some of these people.
Also, characters that are mechanically rubbish for the sake of "character". I just dont see myself playing in a game like that.

Am I being harsh and a grumpy grognard?You're being a grumpy grognard and not enjoying a different style of play. :) Which is perfectly fine, really. I'm not aware of a good livecast D&D game that would satisfy most grognards.

I'm fine with the mistakes. Mistakes happen at tables and a lot of the campaigns I've seen out there are good examples for other tables on how to deal with mistakes. The Crit Role folks, for example, are good about identifying mistakes and trying not to make them in the future. They're also good about rolling with the mistakes. A mistake happened? Oh, well, we'll try to do it better in the future. Not sure what to do? This seems fair/cool, let's roll with it for now and look it up later. Really good examples of tables working together to have fun and not letting a strict adherence to the rules get in their way. I can see why that would drive an old-school grognard nuts. :)

I like characters that are sub-optimal builds because they're adhering to the intent of the character rather than making the most effective build. But that's just my preference and I understand it annoys the heck out of players who prefer other gaming styles.

[Galithar]

Adding to what I said previously I don't have an issue with unoptimized characters. I get slightly annoyed when players don't know how their characters work, and don't make an obvious attempt to learn it and improve.

The 10th time you make a mistake about how your class feature works I start getting annoyed. Your ability only works on levelled Ice and Acid spells, stop trying to use it on fire cantrips!!

[Galaxander]

If it's a podcast, then the people playing are intentionally creating entertainment. There are times where carefully following the rules to a T just isn't as entertaining as rolling with what seems right in the moment, especially if it involves interrupting the flow to look up/debate how a particular rule works.

[Asmotherion]

I can see an argument for the fact that people who don't know the rules may use misinterpreted rules as an example and think that this is how the rules really work.

However, this would be easy to solve with a disclaimer on what rules were homebrewed.

My viewpoint is, I dislike it too when it happens, but not to the point of getting anoyed by it.

[Luccan]

I want to say I do sometimes, but the more I think about it, the sillier it seems tome that I do. Most D&D streams, if they make any money, don't make enough to be the players' or DM's only gig. They aren't thinking about the game all the time (even if they'd like to be); they have other things to do. Even with the most successful D&D show on the planet, Critical Role, the players and DM have other jobs as actors, voice directors, etc. Even with regards to CR itself they're also all involved in running the business to some degree, they aren't just the talent. On top of that, I'd argue their job is to be entertaining more than it is to play D&D properly. Obviously if a stream completely botched it they'd cut down their views considerably, but a strict adherence might do as much damage with how it could interrupt the flow. I think "good enough" if perfectly acceptable, in this case. I mean, sports has rules mistakes all the time (so I'm told), with people whose sole job it is to know the rules. And they don't even have to worry about crafting a narrative and playing fictional people in a world they can't actually see while they do that.

[Zevox]

If it's a podcast, then the people playing are intentionally creating entertainment. There are times where carefully following the rules to a T just isn't as entertaining as rolling with what seems right in the moment, especially if it involves interrupting the flow to look up/debate how a particular rule works.
This exactly. My personal favorite D&D podcast has always fairly routinely played fast and loose with the rules, and I think that has helped them tell more entertaining stories. And as far as really any podcasters are concerned, certainly keeping their audience entertained is going to be the most important part, so if they're doing that, it would likely ultimately matter little how closely they're following the official rules.

[Tanarii]

I find most podcasts unwatchable, because I couldn't play with a DM like the majority of them.

Critical Role in particular is one of the worst. DMing like Mercer's is intolerable to me, he has no pacing skills, and his players are visibly bored in multiple videos. Also funny voices done for the sake of funny voices, as a substitute for making decisions for the character in the fantasy environment, is a roleplaying technique that turns me off fast.

Rules mistakes on the fly don't bother me at all. Better to play the game and figure it out where the mistakes were made later than get too bogged down. Mistakes because of old edition rules are also something I used to run into a lot, but that was the same after release of 3e and 4e as well. And there's a lot of commonly misunderstood or differently interpreted rules, especially in 5e with its rulings over rules philosophy. Players and DMs can have drastically different ideas about e.g. how stealth should work.

OTOH players not knowing the basics of their character after multiple sessions does irritate me.

[Dork_Forge]

OTOH players not knowing the basics of their character after multiple sessions does irritate me.

This.

One game I enjoyed for the most part had a guy playing a Kensei Monk, this was his first game ever so it was understandable there's a steep learning curve for him. However a year and a half (10+ levels) later he still showed a lack of understanding of his base abilities he had since the game started at level 3. It's one thing if a person doesn't understand new abilities for a while or can't remember them, but it was literally the foundation of his character that had been present the entire time.

[Tanarii]

This.

One game I enjoyed for the most part had a guy playing a Kensei Monk, this was his first game ever so it was understandable there's a steep learning curve for him. However a year and a half (10+ levels) later he still showed a lack of understanding of his base abilities he had since the game started at level 3. It's one thing if a person doesn't understand new abilities for a while or can't remember them, but it was literally the foundation of his character that had been present the entire time.Some people play the game to act. Or they want to immerse themselves as a person in a fantasy world. The whole rules thing isn't particularly important to them, sometimes they even feel like rules are just getting in the way. That's the most common reason I've encountered this kind of thing.

The immersion thing is all very laudable, but the level of not caring about the rules, or even active disdain for mechanics, means I can't play in a game with them long term. Or watch them in a podcast.

[Mukade]

If it's a podcast, then the people playing are intentionally creating entertainment. There are times where carefully following the rules to a T just isn't as entertaining as rolling with what seems right in the moment, especially if it involves interrupting the flow to look up/debate how a particular rule works.

This. They're creating entertainment with D&D more than playing D&D. While if I was sitting at a table with some of them, it wouldn't be a great game for me, and I do notice when they make rules mistakes, as a listener it doesn't bother me.
E.g. Emily Axford is absolutely hilarious but would probably be frustrating to DM for
in Dungeons & Daddies they barely play D&D but it's probably the funniest podcast out there right now.

[Rolero]

The only thing I ask of my players, is that they are, at minimun, familiar with their class capabilities, preferably knowing how all his skills work. Anything else, I can take care of myself. Sure, new players or people not too engaged with the game tend to struggle with the rules, but I think is the job of the DM to help this guys the most.

Of course, playing online can be tricky, and the ones that do so tend to be more invested in the game and are expected to know their characters and the rules in and out. So I can understand your frustration, but this is a discussion you should have with the DM and the involved players OOG, to make sure everyone is on the same page and what kind of game this is going to be (dungeon crawling powergaming, roleplay focused, city intrigue, etc)

On regards to Critical Role, I think of it as a show first and a DnD game second. It is true that on the first campaign rules are out the window constantly, mainly for two reasons: the game migration from Pathfinder to 5e, with the rules confusion this generates, and that none of them are seasoned players, and because of their jobs, could not play with enough frequency to get used to the game (especially during the first campaign)
On the second campaign, most of them have master the game to acceptable estandards and Matt threw away most of the homebrew to keep the game attuned to rules as written in 5e.

[fbelanger]

Grognard or not, Wotc fully support Critical role show style.
Future product will be influenced by CR popularity.
So we will see coming more rule simplification or rule of cool,
more tools for role play and character back story.

[Pex]

Some people play the game to act. Or they want to immerse themselves as a person in a fantasy world. The whole rules thing isn't particularly important to them, sometimes they even feel like rules are just getting in the way. That's the most common reason I've encountered this kind of thing.

The immersion thing is all very laudable, but the level of not caring about the rules, or even active disdain for mechanics, means I can't play in a game with them long term. Or watch them in a podcast.

I know those players, and they are annoying as well. They get frustrated when the rules don't let them do what they want to do and take an instant disliking to anyone who 'corrects' them. With bias, often that's me. They like to retort "But my other DM lets me do it." It's all about the narrative of their character and usually are the ones who play the game despite the other players. They have no interest what anyone else does. They'll go against The Plan if they have to do their own thing. If another PC will be put in a disadvantageous position they don't care. I call these players Drama Queens. As DM I've had those types of players quit because I enforce the rules, and I'm not sorry they left. As a player, if the DM enables it I quit because that's true "Mother May I" :smallwink: If the DM doesn't care about the rules then we're not playing the game I want. If the DM does enforce the rules those players quit, and I'm also glad they went.

If they have their own game where they can free form everything I don't begrudge them their fun, but it's not for me.

[Luccan]

It probably doesn't help that you're never going to take mental note of when the rules are used correctly. When the most likely memory you can form about someone's use of rules are when they're wrong and you're watching instead of playing, it's probably much easier to form the opinion that they have no idea how the game works.

[Grey Watcher]

I don't watch/listen to a ton of them, but I've seldom come across instances where the rules were so thoroughly disregarded as to bother me. Yeah, there's that occasional moment of "Wait, did they just miss that <thing> is a factor?" but seizing on it rarely seems worth the effort.

Ironically, the stuff that bothers me a little more isn't rules, but table etiquette type stuff. Things I learned to do as basic courtesy to help keeping things moving like "if you have (dis)advantage, roll both dice at once" and "roll your attack and damage dice at the same time.' CR, for instance, can get some exciting, cinematic combat going, only for it to start to drag when we see a player roll, roll the (dis)advantage, roll damage, roll some more damage, roll each sneak attack die in succession, and finally add their modifiers. Still not enough to be ragequit worthy, but it does make me wish some guest player would come on and do it properly just to show them a fairly easy way to tighten up the pacing and spend more time on the fun bits.

(That and trying to voice act various monster screeches and growls and roars and whatnot. Seriously, Matt, you're not Frank Welker.)

[KOLE]

Ironically, the stuff that bothers me a little more isn't rules, but table etiquette type stuff. Things I learned to do as basic courtesy to help keeping things moving like "if you have (dis)advantage, roll both dice at once" and "roll your attack and damage dice at the same time.' CR, for instance, can get some exciting, cinematic combat going, only for it to start to drag when we see a player roll, roll the (dis)advantage, roll damage, roll some more damage, roll each sneak attack die in succession, and finally add their modifiers. Still not enough to be ragequit worthy, but it does make me wish some guest player would come on and do it properly just to show them a fairly easy way to tighten up the pacing and spend more time on the fun bits.


I love Laura Bailey and Vex, but every time she spent five minutes rolling her attack, base damage, hunter's mark, sneak attack, remembering sharpshooter, remembering which modifiers she had with her tricked out bow, then asking if her Bracer's were just for attack rolls or damage rolls, etc. etc., I died inside. It doesn't help that for some reason, after all these years, no one ever remembers how criticals work.

Liam/Vax's sneak attack rolls were a continual low point in the latter days of Vox Machina. The Rogue and Ranger shouldn't be taking more time on their turn than the full spell casters. I really respect Sam for keeping the momentum going even though he had a crap ton more stuff to keep track of on his turn.

[Galaxander]

I love Laura Bailey and Vex, but every time she spent five minutes rolling her attack, base damage, hunter's mark, sneak attack, remembering sharpshooter, remembering which modifiers she had with her tricked out bow, then asking if her Bracer's were just for attack rolls or damage rolls, etc. etc., I died inside. It doesn't help that for some reason, after all these years, no one ever remembers how criticals work.

Liam/Vax's sneak attack rolls were a continual low point in the latter days of Vox Machina. The Rogue and Ranger shouldn't be taking more time on their turn than the full spell casters. I really respect Sam for keeping the momentum going even though he had a crap ton more stuff to keep track of on his turn.

I'd love it if there was a version of Critical Role with the combat edited entirely down to actions/outcomes/highlights in general.

[Sigreid]

Don't think I've ever played with or seen a group that didn't mess with the rules to some extent or other. Often by a lot.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

Does anyone else find it annoying when groups playing D&D on podcasts/Twitch don't know the rules?
It seems to me that if you are making money off the game, you should know how It works.
I really don't want to be a rules lawyer, or "That guy", but I feel like I would hate to play with some of these people.
Also, characters that are mechanically rubbish for the sake of "character". I just dont see myself playing in a game like that.

Am I being harsh and a grumpy grognard?

I would say more of someone that has different taste in application of the game.

But I can agree with you in what your saying but remember, it is just for entertainment. They are more concerned with people being entertain than whether they are playing the game correctly.

[FiddleForge]

I agree. That's one of the reasons I stopped watching Critical Role. They're all playing these characters for YEARS and still ask the DM how their class features work or how a spell affects the enemy. It gets very old, especially knowing how much production value gets put in. I get that they are actors by trade so their minds are set on character portrayel primarily and everything else follows after but these aren't hard things to remember when used as often as they use them. Spell cards are a thing, character sheets can be as detailed as you want and photocopies of your class' pages in the rulebook could be made by an unpaid intern, at least.

I do recognize that everyone has fun in their own way. Some people don't care about the mechanics as much and laugh off repeated mistakes and everyone has fun with them. I, however, have autistic tendencies (still being evaluated) and one thing that really bothers me is when people in the group don't seem to care about the game. Playing on phones, not updating character sheets, not thinking at all about the next level for their class until the last minute, taking extra long to decide anything, etc (I LOSE it if anyone brings up Yakety Sax. We get it, comical moment, don't use that same stupid song to underscore it for the 10 billionth time!). It doesn't make sense to me to say you want to play a game but then invest little into it.

I've just come to the conclusion that I really only want to play in the game and that watching others do it isn't that rewarding for me. Everyone is entitled to their own perspective, though.