I would have some issues with a lot of what the DM in his group allowed (especially using your big toe for somatic gestures -- yes, I know I am exaggerating but it makes the point) ...
The DM didn't allow this. It's the fact the player asked about it that apparently enrages Vince.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I would have some issues with a lot of what the DM in his group allowed (especially using your big toe for somatic gestures -- yes, I know I am exaggerating but it makes the point) ...
The DM didn't allow this. It's the fact the player asked about it that apparently enrages Vince.
I mean, I can understand being annoyed that they don't know that rule and are wasting time asking that question, but being enraged is a huge overreaction, in my opinion. I play with a lot of new players who probably don't own the official rulebooks in order to learn minutia like somatic components requiring an empty hand, so I would have been much more understanding in this case, especially since 5e's spell component rules are convoluted and fairly difficult to understand.
Annoyance would have been a reaction that I could understand for this, and even that seems like a bit much for a rule like spell components. Enraged just seems like unneeded anger and lacking empathy/understanding of the other player's understanding.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Moreover, the player whom the DM ruled against seemed not upset by being ruled against. They seemingly accepted the DM's rulings. What caused more disruption? The player trying questionable things, or the other player complaining about a player trying questionable things? From the description, sounds like the latter.
I do agree that at the table, it's better for players not to get involved in a DM's ruling with another player.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Others have done a great job responding to Vince, but most of them have giant posts that most people may feel intimidating/difficult to read (especially those, like me, with ADHD). To help these people, I will do a shorter summary here.
Vince, honest to god, I want you and everyone else that plays D&D to have a good time playing the game. You didn't have fun at this group. As the saying goes, "No D&D is better than Bad D&D". This session was bad D&D for you (I don't know how the other players felt, if they had fun it was not "wrong", "bad", or deserving of hate), so I would recommend to you to spare yourself the trauma of participating in other games that feel like absolutely abhorrent abominations to you. The answer to this issue is really simple, only five words; Stop Playing With That Group.
If you play D&D and don't have fun, and you get angry because of how your group is playing, plain and simple; leave that group and stop playing with them. Your playstyles are likely incompatible and it's much easier for all of us if you stop trying to squeeze a square peg through a circular hole and just stop playing with them. Leave that group, apologize that your playstyle doesn't work with theirs, and go join another group that caters more towards your playstyle. Spare yourself (and us) of your rage that your group is selfish for not trying to make the game fun for you, while they were likely having fun themselves, and just stop playing with them and find a better group for you.
It's better for you, your table, and everyone who otherwise would have to see a huge post about your itemized list of 30 years of disagreements with them.
If you can't find a new group, I'm sincerely sorry, but you're going to have to compromise. Try to see if both you and your group can find some middle ground that is enjoyable to all of you. If it's still not fun and enjoyable after a few sessions of compromising between your playstyles, stop playing. Again, no D&D is better than bad D&D. If your playstyles are so fundamentally different that trying to compromise results in an overall loss of fun for your group, and you're the one that's playstyle is causing this discrepancy, it is your responsibility to stop playing with them and let them have fun until you can find a group that works better for you.
Got it? It's really simple. Again, I do apologize, but as your signature says, "facts trump feelings". It is a widely accepted fact that square pegs don't fit through round holes and that no D&D is better than bad D&D. If you feel like they have to cater to you, and you don't have to do any work at all because you "hate creative players, Rules as Cool, and DMs that cater towards them", you are in the wrong. Compromise means that both sides have to give up some ground.
I wish you the best and hope you can get over your misdirected anger towards people that are doing you no harm. It's just a matter of different playstyles. Good luck in your endeavor to make future D&D sessions more fun for you.
No one twisted your arm to read this, let alone respond. You can mute me and any angst my existence causes you goes away.
Is this a rant? Yes.
Does it make a point? Even more so.
I will say it explicitly. The people that need "rule of cool" in their game to have a good time or be productive in game are not very good players. Read the comments the players and DM made about "creativity". It takes more creativity to play within the rules than to make stuff up to achieve your goals. And "rule of cool" is also selfish. It take longer to narrate what a "cool" player wants to do, then the DM has to adjudicate it. It is also insulting to those that play within the rules.
And keep in mind this was session 8 or 9. The DM (who I knew since he played in my RAW game for about 40 sessions) held no session 0. The "creative" player has been getting progressively worse. Last session was by far the worse. He has been playing D&D off and on since AD&D, but he relatively new to 5e. That I am sure of. So slips in rules, in earlier sessions (like him not keeping track of his spell slots, therefore casting spells at will), I let slide. But he is not making any effort to improve his knowledge of the most basic mechanics. And when the DM's latest comments (which I posted in my OP), will now completely enable him to run wild and ignore any and all rules that he find constrictive.
So, am I enraged? Yes.
Do I feel I wasted my time? Yes.
Do I feel bad about the waste of emotional investment, and the fact that the DM has a really good story (he is actually using the map of my Homebrew continent, and demographics), and I hugely enjoyed the early episodes, and now each progressively less. You bet I feel bad about that.
Read near the bottom where I say:
"And then the DM weighed in, and I know I was doomed:"
I am well aware this is lost cause, but so ranting about this is only a catharsis for me, but does allow me to make the point about "rule of cool" is a crutch for weak players.
I would have some issues with a lot of what the DM in his group allowed (especially using your big toe for somatic gestures -- yes, I know I am exaggerating but it makes the point) ...
The DM didn't allow this. It's the fact the player asked about it that apparently enrages Vince.
I mean, I can understand being annoyed that they don't know that rule and are wasting time asking that question, but being enraged is a huge overreaction, in my opinion. I play with a lot of new players who probably don't own the official rulebooks in order to learn minutia like somatic components requiring an empty hand, so I would have been much more understanding in this case, especially since 5e's spell component rules are convoluted and fairly difficult to understand.
Annoyance would have been a reaction that I could understand for this, and even that seems like a bit much for a rule like spell components. Enraged just seems like unneeded anger and lacking empathy/understanding of the other player's understanding.
I am sure I have said it at least once, maybe twice in this thread. This was not some 12 year old kid playing D&D for the first time. This was a man in his 40'/50's who has been playing D&D since AD&D. There is no way this blatant attempt to break the rules was a new thing to the player.
Moreover, the player whom the DM ruled against seemed not upset by being ruled against. They seemingly accepted the DM's rulings. What caused more disruption? The player trying questionable things, or the other player complaining about a player trying questionable things? From the description, sounds like the latter.
I do agree that at the table, it's better for players not to get involved in a DM's ruling with another player.
Hence why the only thing I brought up in game was the complete butchering of the Readied Action rules. I muted my mic, screamed in my room, for the remainder. And then the next day I sent a list, with supporting documentation, to the DM. I was operating in good faith, believing these were simply sins of ignorance. Then the DM's comment about rules as "minutiae" made me realize these are sins of commission.
Moreover, the player whom the DM ruled against seemed not upset by being ruled against. They seemingly accepted the DM's rulings. What caused more disruption? The player trying questionable things, or the other player complaining about a player trying questionable things? From the description, sounds like the latter.
I do agree that at the table, it's better for players not to get involved in a DM's ruling with another player.
Hence why the only thing I brought up in game was the complete butchering of the Readied Action rules. I muted my mic, screamed in my room, for the remainder. And then the next day I sent a list, with supporting documentation, to the DM. I was operating in good faith, believing these were simply sins of ignorance. Then the DM's comment about rules as "minutiae" made me realize these are sins of commission.
When you start treating perceived campaign 'wrongs' as court cases, it might be time for you to take a break from the game. It is just that, a game. A recreational activity. A cooperative narrative.
If you treat it as adversarial as you vs the DM or worse, you vs the rest of the party, relying on strict adherence to the written rule as if this was some sort of top league sporting match, you really have lost the concept that it is indeed intended a form of light entertainment.
And again, the degree to which you rules lawyer, that you do treat perceived infractions as court actionable charges, leads me to repeat my opinion that you are playing the rules, not the game.
There are a lot of players in the world. It is a safe bet there are like minded players out there somewhere who would be happy to have you in their group. However, such extremism as you are presenting here is likely a hard sell at most tables.
You are the one that keeps bringing this up as some kind of court case. If a DM does not know the rules, and I mean CLEARLY does not know the rules, and I am not going to interrupt the game, I guess I should use a Ouija Board to contact the DM. And don't say "You should never let a DM know they screwed up."
I think the saying "you can certainly try" is a great way to punish ridiculous actions. "Can I heal by touching with my foot?" If the player goes ahead you describe the energy condensing in their hands and failing to transfer anywhere else on their body. Action and spell slot wasted. Obviously leniency for beginners.
Honestly I don't care about the rest of the topic but I just want to say that this argument that someone's D&D is better or stronger than someone else's because they adhere strictly to RAW and if players want to try something cool it's a show of weakness on their part is making me think this:
I will take a "weak" player who wants to try things and maybe not understand the RAW from time to time over a guy who will produce a whole document of my misgivings and write a thread about it on a forum - any day of the week.
I'm actually not sure that Vince is coming from a strictly "Wargaming" mentality as you define it.
It's not hard to argue it considering how parts of discussions that the OP started are about his arguments with other players about the fact that it makes zero mechanical difference whether they turn away from an archer or not (to which they responded that they felt that their characters wouldn't turn their backs to an archer) and that by RAW Burning Hands do zero damage to a wall made of ice.
Both correct under RAW but kind of indicating the mindset there.
If the fact that one of my players asks whether he can flash freeze a puddle of water with their cone of cold spell to make something happen shows their "weakness" then I will gladly take those weak players.
I read most of the posts of the thread and while most of these would cause me to either argue with the DM or consider leaving the group, the fifth issue on the list seems to be the most amusing. While Cure Wounds clearly requires a free hand, it's absolutely within the rules to drop your weapon, cast a spell, then pick up your weapon. There's almost never going to be a consequence to that kind of juggling unless you drop your weapon somewhere where you can't pick it up mid-fight and if an enemy wastes their turn just to ready an action to steal your weapon then it's not that big of a deal since you're a caster (or an Eldritch Knight who can just summon it back anyway). So yeah, Cure Wounds with your foot is obviously a no go but the more ridiculous "weapon juggle" trick many people are aware of is totally fine.
I think, BioWizard, that the "Rule of Cool' is being treated a little unfairly in this thread.
A lot of folks think that 'Rule of Cool' means a DM should allow whatever juvenile grandstanding jackanapery the player feels would make for a good spectacle, or whatever makes them feel like a superhero. That's a shallow understanding, though. 'Cool' doesn't necessarily just mean poorly thought out anime hijinks, it means allowing or facilitating things that make the game better for the players.
The shield wall example from Vince's original tirade is actually a good example. The DM for that game doesn't seem to've handled it well, which is understandable given that the idea was popped on him out of the blue and the core 5e ruleset is actually very terrible at allowing players to closely coordinate their actions and use teamwork in combat. The DM tried to use the rules he knew, which were Readied actions, to allow the players to move in unison, and I'm assuming they offered each other some manner of defensive benefit commensurate with moving in a shield wall. It turned into a mess, but the idea of the team's heavily armored, shield-bearing warriors taking the front and providing a bulwark against enemy fire? That's a cool idea. It's evocative, it's in keeping with the characters' ideals and methods, and frankly I will die on the hill labeled "A DM should never get in the way of players trying to work together and employ close teamwork if she can possibly, remotely help it."
Our table's actually evolved rules to help with this, since we've had similar issues pop up more than once. Players that want to coordinate actions can combine their Initiative - the player with the lowest Initiative roll becomes the new Initiative point for all the players trying to coordinate, and when that point comes up in initiative the players take their turns concurrently. It allows them to move in unison and focus their actions towards accomplishing a task other than "hit it till it stops moving". We've found it to be a clean solution for doing stuff like one character giving another a boost up to a roof, before turning and hauling the buddy up himself, to get better positioning in the fight and survey the area for other threats (in one specific instance), or allowing the Oath of Glory paladin to actually do what his class features say he's doing and shuttle the team quickly across a busy battlefield we needed to escape through using his increased movement aura.
Were those three players running by our table's rule, they could've matched initiative to the lowest roll and moved concurrently. As a DM, I might've given anyone immediately behind those three cover from ranged attacks. Total cover, maybe not, but some cover. Because the players were putting themselves in the way and acting like heroes invested in their party's survival and success, and I don't see a reason to punish them for that or tell them no. Because selflessly putting your armor between your friends and hostile enemies is cool.
That's 'Rule of Cool' to me. Not necessarily just obnoxious and inappropriate anime grandstanding (though I love me some appropriate anime grandstanding when the player senses their proper ****in' moment and goes for it, I'm super ****in' down for that shit too), but actually cool things like being the heroes they're calling themselves or upholding the fun of the game. 'Cool' means making the story we're all playing more amazing to tell, and that bar is generally higher than just DIO DA-ing and trying to turn the game into a shitty Internet meme.
I’m very cool with players trying to do creative things as a DM. The only thing I dislike is when they act like they get OP benefits for doing it. If a player tries to do something and then they say what mechanical benefit they should get from it, I would say “you can try that action, but I am ruling it differently.” Generally if the player just wants to be creative then it’s all good, and I love creative actions that isn’t “I use battleaxe”. It’s just when the player says that he/she should get (insert benefit here that’s OP) then it becomes a problem. Like maybe instead of a fire spell melting a whole ice wall, I would tell the player to make an Arcana check with their spellcasting stat replacing intelligence if they are not a wizard or artificer to see how potent the spell would be at melting the ice. On a natural 20, ok they can have the whole ice melt, but with something else, I’d give less of a benefit.
I personally feel the best way to handle a player trying to do something cool, is to leave it to the dice generally.
The shield thing was a great idea, although I think it was ruled in a wrong way by the DM.
I don’t think the cleric player is trying to do anything harmful, they just want to have fun. Maybe a talk with the DM, and the cleric player would make things go right. Although, the cleric is definitely trying to exploit rules with the foot thing. That would just be a blatant no from me. Again, I don’t think any harm is intended, although there is a bit of exploitation that should be politely talked about.
No one twisted your arm to read this, let alone respond. You can mute me and any angst my existence causes you goes away.
In my experience, using the Ignore button is just as useful as plugging your nose to avoid the smell of skunk spray. Sure, it blocks some of it out, but a lot of it still finds a way through, whether it be through someone quoting the Ignored person or the thread being derailed by an invisible person you can neither see nor directly respond to. That's why I tend to avoid using the Ignore button, and I won't be pressured by you into hitting it on your account. If you don't want to see my posts, why don't you go and Ignore me?
If you make a thread for the sole purpose of hating on a major group of the D&D player base who have done absolutely nothing to hurt you, people (including me) are going to respond with our suggestions. Many of them will do so much less neighborly than I did.
Is this a rant? Yes.
Oh boy, it is.
Does it make a point? Even more so.
Not the point that you're trying to make ;)
The point you're trying to make, based on your posts in this thread, history posting on this site, and the literal title of the thread is that people who find Rule of Cool and creative problem solving in D&D fun in D&D are playing D&D wrong and are deserving of hatred.
The point that comes across is a problem player whining about their DM and fellow players behind their back and smack-talking them for even verbally considering some possible choices that lay outside of the RAW. (And I mean no disrespect by saying "problem player" here, I'm just using it for a lack of a better term. It's merely a fact that any player that rules lawyers with a DM that is a bit less strict on being RAW is going to be a problem player at that table. This is true just as it is true that a pacifist would be a problem player at a murderhobo party.)
I will say it explicitly. The people that need "rule of cool" in their game to have a good time or be productive in game are not very good players. Read the comments the players and DM made about "creativity". It takes more creativity to play within the rules than to make stuff up to achieve your goals. And "rule of cool" is also selfish. It take longer to narrate what a "cool" player wants to do, then the DM has to adjudicate it. It is also insulting to those that play within the rules.
And your explicit statement is wrong. You cannot prove it. It goes against the laws of D&D, that D&D cannot be "wrong" unless people are not having fun at the table due to the way they are playing it and it is not directly negatively affecting outside of the table.
I agree with your DM's sentiment that Rules Minutia often get in the way of creativity and fun at the table. Somatic components are minutia, and have nothing to do with balance. It neither takes more creativity to have fun inside the rules than outside of it. However, creativity will be more restrained by the RAW than by the Rule of Cool. Sometimes there are not rules for things that can/will come up in gameplay, so the DM will have to create a ruling outside of the RAW.
For example, as a player, the opportunity for my character to become Lord of a town named Ascore arose, and I took it. The table unanimously decided to pause the main quest as my character figured out how to get my tiny village to get a profit and grow into a suitable home base for our party. How did we do this within the RAW? There's no rules for growing towns in the PHB or DMG. By your obviously dominant opinion ;) that anything outside of RAW being "bad playing", so to try to do this is clearly against the spirit of D&D and thus should not be attempted, right?
Wrong. Using dozens of internet searches for price ratios of goats to cheese, and finding general prices of wood, we were able to create rough rules for how much a small village could make in money each month from selling a combination of goat cheese, glass, and lumber. We all had a great time doing this, spending about a year of in-game downtime expanding our city and playing Expand-the-City in D&D before picking up the main quest again.
And keep in mind this was session 8 or 9. The DM (who I knew since he played in my RAW game for about 40 sessions) held no session 0. The "creative" player has been getting progressively worse. Last session was by far the worse. He has been playing D&D off and on since AD&D, but he relatively new to 5e. That I am sure of. So slips in rules, in earlier sessions (like him not keeping track of his spell slots, therefore casting spells at will), I let slide. But he is not making any effort to improve his knowledge of the most basic mechanics. And when the DM's latest comments (which I posted in my OP), will now completely enable him to run wild and ignore any and all rules that he find constrictive.
There's a difference between not keeping track of spell slots and trying to avoid obeying spell component rules. I personally find not keeping track of spell slots more egregious than trying to do somatic components with a foot, as the former is a matter of balance while the latter is a flavor rule. Like I said above, I deal with players new to 5e all the time, so I constantly have to remind them of the rules and to keep track of spell slots/superiority dice.
Again, I will stress to you that you should stop playing with this group and try to find a group that better suits your tastes instead of trying to bend them to your will. You're not the DM, and you're not morally superior to them due to your knowledge of the rules. Don't try to pretend otherwise, because you're not better than anyone due to your knowledge (this applies to any subject. It is the job of the informed to help inform the uninformed, but that doesn't give you a higher rank than them).
So, am I enraged? Yes.
Do I feel I wasted my time? Yes.
Do I feel bad about the waste of emotional investment, and the fact that the DM has a really good story (he is actually using the map of my Homebrew continent, and demographics), and I hugely enjoyed the early episodes, and now each progressively less. You bet I feel bad about that.
Then stop playing with them and go find another group. It's as simple as that.
Read near the bottom where I say:
"And then the DM weighed in, and I know I was doomed:"
I am well aware this is lost cause, but so ranting about this is only a catharsis for me, but does allow me to make the point about "rule of cool" is a crutch for weak players.
And this is where you are objectively wrong. Fun cannot be wrong unless people at the table are not having fun and the fun doesn't directly negatively impact others outside of the table. A table of murderhobos are playing D&D correctly as long as they are having fun and aren't hurting anyone in real life. The same is true for tables of powergameres, ultra-roleplayers, old-school players, new-fashioned players, and so on. If everyone at your table would be having fun with the way they're playing the game, they are playing the game correctly, and it would be wrong for you to try and change that or call them bad/weak for their playstyle. It is dickish behavior and comes across as a kid whining that they don't get to blow out the candles at their brother's birthday party.
Understood?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I would have some issues with a lot of what the DM in his group allowed (especially using your big toe for somatic gestures -- yes, I know I am exaggerating but it makes the point) ...
The DM didn't allow this. It's the fact the player asked about it that apparently enrages Vince.
I mean, I can understand being annoyed that they don't know that rule and are wasting time asking that question, but being enraged is a huge overreaction, in my opinion. I play with a lot of new players who probably don't own the official rulebooks in order to learn minutia like somatic components requiring an empty hand, so I would have been much more understanding in this case, especially since 5e's spell component rules are convoluted and fairly difficult to understand.
Annoyance would have been a reaction that I could understand for this, and even that seems like a bit much for a rule like spell components. Enraged just seems like unneeded anger and lacking empathy/understanding of the other player's understanding.
I am sure I have said it at least once, maybe twice in this thread. This was not some 12 year old kid playing D&D for the first time. This was a man in his 40'/50's who has been playing D&D since AD&D. There is no way this blatant attempt to break the rules was a new thing to the player.
You said that they were fairly new to 5e. Unless I understand incorrectly, previous editions worked differently from 5e in many ways, including spellcasting. I would just say that you probably shouldn't judge someone so harshly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I don’t think the cleric player is trying to do anything harmful, they just want to have fun. Maybe a talk with the DM, and the cleric player would make things go right. Although, the cleric is definitely trying to exploit rules with the foot thing. That would just be a blatant no from me. Again, I don’t think any harm is intended, although there is a bit of exploitation that should be politely talked about.
No one is saying the conduct of the table is intentionally malicious. But that's the problem with this sort (not all sorts) of "rule of cool" rule bending: it's disregarding the rules to spotlight the "creativity" of a particular player in this instance and with detrimental consequences to the agency of other PCs. The Hafling scout had actions that should be available to him but the DM denied him on account of the shield maneuver the DM was indulging, even though Halfling characters are often specifically selected for that mobility benefit.
Don't get me wrong, I'll reward/grant actions that might nudge the measuring tape a bit on the battle map more than let the battlemap dictate the game (reminds me of my stance in another thread by this thread's OP). But I really prefer players who are considerate of the capabilities of other characters, and gives them space to perform, rather than be "creative" at a way that controls the scene and the group and actually takes away what should be valid moves in the encounter. Again, of course it's not intentional. That's the problem with arrogance and privileging ideas over others, it's often done with an embarrassing lack of self-awareness. The biggest evangelist of the Rule of Cool, if you pay attention, is very intentional about giving space as opposed to letting characters overly pull focus (pulling focus is a pretty good staging/dramatic concept DMs should be aware of and know when and how to correct in game). Most players and many DMs who seek license via Rule of Cool aren't, which is again one of the blowbacks of the Mercer effect, not a game crippling one but one DMs and Players should be aware of.
That's the problem with arrogance and privileging ideas over others, it's often done with an embarrassing lack of self-awareness.
Ugh. No disrespect, Midnight', but in a thread where players get painted as "not very good" as if that'd be a pertinent argument bringing up they're also arrogant and lacking in self-awareness is a little bit ironic and maybe not the best look.
I don't really care who's the "better" player at that table, whatever that even means. I do know that being the better player doesn't bestow any moral authority over how people should have fun. I also know throwing a tantrum is unlikely to improve anything. In that regard I'm happy Vince held back (and I think it was fortunate this wasn't an in person game), I hope he'll keep the drama minimal if he does decide to walk away next session, but getting this worked up over this situation? That's not great.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That's the problem with arrogance and privileging ideas over others, it's often done with an embarrassing lack of self-awareness.
Ugh. No disrespect, Midnight', but in a thread where players get painted as "not very good" as if that'd be a pertinent argument bringing up they're also arrogant and lacking in self-awareness is a little bit ironic and maybe not the best look.
I don't really care who's the "better" player at that table, whatever that even means. I do know that being the better player doesn't bestow any moral authority over how people should have fun. I also know throwing a tantrum is unlikely to improve anything. In that regard I'm happy Vince held back (and I think it was fortunate this wasn't an in person game), I hope he'll keep the drama minimal if he does decide to walk away next session, but getting this worked up over this situation? That's not great.
No worries, my responses have been with my MAXIMUM VINCE FILTRATION goggles (tm, Midnightplat 2021) on, so I agree he presents his opposition needlessly antagonistically, if you astronaut suit up against the vitriol I think there's actually the possibility there's a sort of DM deference to "creativity" being done here that's actually detrimental to the broader table's agency. I was one of the earlier respondents, coaching on the "you may be right what you say, but the way you say it" gang as well as "quitting mid session will accomplish nothing but give you the rep as someone who rage quits." Third's late intervention style which belabors the personality read and become Vince personality focused just doesn't accomplish much other than diverting into a recycling of that perennial personality conflict. I prefer to let the tone speak for itself, let it alone, and then mine out productive spaces within the screed which anyone could make use of and try to give some constructive feedback (like the other thread about a circle of darkness being plopped on a map where I was pointing out the fault was actually in how the group was using the VTT as opposed to some sort of logical absurden take down of metagaming prohibitions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
No worries, my responses have been with my MAXIMUM VINCE FILTRATION goggles (tm, Midnightplat 2021) on, so I agree he presents his opposition needlessly antagonistically
I'm pretty sure Vince words things the way he does to get the discussion fired up... which you cannot deny he did (got it fired up, I mean).
No worries, my responses have been with my MAXIMUM VINCE FILTRATION goggles (tm, Midnightplat 2021) on, so I agree he presents his opposition needlessly antagonistically
I'm pretty sure Vince words things the way he does to get the discussion fired up... which you cannot deny he did (got it fired up, I mean).
Insulting people for disagreeing with you is not "getting the discussion fired up."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The DM didn't allow this. It's the fact the player asked about it that apparently enrages Vince.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I mean, I can understand being annoyed that they don't know that rule and are wasting time asking that question, but being enraged is a huge overreaction, in my opinion. I play with a lot of new players who probably don't own the official rulebooks in order to learn minutia like somatic components requiring an empty hand, so I would have been much more understanding in this case, especially since 5e's spell component rules are convoluted and fairly difficult to understand.
Annoyance would have been a reaction that I could understand for this, and even that seems like a bit much for a rule like spell components. Enraged just seems like unneeded anger and lacking empathy/understanding of the other player's understanding.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I do agree that at the table, it's better for players not to get involved in a DM's ruling with another player.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
No one twisted your arm to read this, let alone respond. You can mute me and any angst my existence causes you goes away.
Is this a rant? Yes.
Does it make a point? Even more so.
I will say it explicitly. The people that need "rule of cool" in their game to have a good time or be productive in game are not very good players. Read the comments the players and DM made about "creativity". It takes more creativity to play within the rules than to make stuff up to achieve your goals. And "rule of cool" is also selfish. It take longer to narrate what a "cool" player wants to do, then the DM has to adjudicate it. It is also insulting to those that play within the rules.
And keep in mind this was session 8 or 9. The DM (who I knew since he played in my RAW game for about 40 sessions) held no session 0. The "creative" player has been getting progressively worse. Last session was by far the worse. He has been playing D&D off and on since AD&D, but he relatively new to 5e. That I am sure of. So slips in rules, in earlier sessions (like him not keeping track of his spell slots, therefore casting spells at will), I let slide. But he is not making any effort to improve his knowledge of the most basic mechanics. And when the DM's latest comments (which I posted in my OP), will now completely enable him to run wild and ignore any and all rules that he find constrictive.
So, am I enraged? Yes.
Do I feel I wasted my time? Yes.
Do I feel bad about the waste of emotional investment, and the fact that the DM has a really good story (he is actually using the map of my Homebrew continent, and demographics), and I hugely enjoyed the early episodes, and now each progressively less. You bet I feel bad about that.
Read near the bottom where I say:
"And then the DM weighed in, and I know I was doomed:"
I am well aware this is lost cause, but so ranting about this is only a catharsis for me, but does allow me to make the point about "rule of cool" is a crutch for weak players.
I am sure I have said it at least once, maybe twice in this thread. This was not some 12 year old kid playing D&D for the first time. This was a man in his 40'/50's who has been playing D&D since AD&D. There is no way this blatant attempt to break the rules was a new thing to the player.
Hence why the only thing I brought up in game was the complete butchering of the Readied Action rules. I muted my mic, screamed in my room, for the remainder. And then the next day I sent a list, with supporting documentation, to the DM. I was operating in good faith, believing these were simply sins of ignorance. Then the DM's comment about rules as "minutiae" made me realize these are sins of commission.
You are the one that keeps bringing this up as some kind of court case. If a DM does not know the rules, and I mean CLEARLY does not know the rules, and I am not going to interrupt the game, I guess I should use a Ouija Board to contact the DM. And don't say "You should never let a DM know they screwed up."
I think the saying "you can certainly try" is a great way to punish ridiculous actions. "Can I heal by touching with my foot?" If the player goes ahead you describe the energy condensing in their hands and failing to transfer anywhere else on their body. Action and spell slot wasted. Obviously leniency for beginners.
Honestly I don't care about the rest of the topic but I just want to say that this argument that someone's D&D is better or stronger than someone else's because they adhere strictly to RAW and if players want to try something cool it's a show of weakness on their part is making me think this:
I will take a "weak" player who wants to try things and maybe not understand the RAW from time to time over a guy who will produce a whole document of my misgivings and write a thread about it on a forum - any day of the week.
It's not hard to argue it considering how parts of discussions that the OP started are about his arguments with other players about the fact that it makes zero mechanical difference whether they turn away from an archer or not (to which they responded that they felt that their characters wouldn't turn their backs to an archer) and that by RAW Burning Hands do zero damage to a wall made of ice.
Both correct under RAW but kind of indicating the mindset there.
If the fact that one of my players asks whether he can flash freeze a puddle of water with their cone of cold spell to make something happen shows their "weakness" then I will gladly take those weak players.
I read most of the posts of the thread and while most of these would cause me to either argue with the DM or consider leaving the group, the fifth issue on the list seems to be the most amusing. While Cure Wounds clearly requires a free hand, it's absolutely within the rules to drop your weapon, cast a spell, then pick up your weapon. There's almost never going to be a consequence to that kind of juggling unless you drop your weapon somewhere where you can't pick it up mid-fight and if an enemy wastes their turn just to ready an action to steal your weapon then it's not that big of a deal since you're a caster (or an Eldritch Knight who can just summon it back anyway). So yeah, Cure Wounds with your foot is obviously a no go but the more ridiculous "weapon juggle" trick many people are aware of is totally fine.
I think, BioWizard, that the "Rule of Cool' is being treated a little unfairly in this thread.
A lot of folks think that 'Rule of Cool' means a DM should allow whatever juvenile grandstanding jackanapery the player feels would make for a good spectacle, or whatever makes them feel like a superhero. That's a shallow understanding, though. 'Cool' doesn't necessarily just mean poorly thought out anime hijinks, it means allowing or facilitating things that make the game better for the players.
The shield wall example from Vince's original tirade is actually a good example. The DM for that game doesn't seem to've handled it well, which is understandable given that the idea was popped on him out of the blue and the core 5e ruleset is actually very terrible at allowing players to closely coordinate their actions and use teamwork in combat. The DM tried to use the rules he knew, which were Readied actions, to allow the players to move in unison, and I'm assuming they offered each other some manner of defensive benefit commensurate with moving in a shield wall. It turned into a mess, but the idea of the team's heavily armored, shield-bearing warriors taking the front and providing a bulwark against enemy fire? That's a cool idea. It's evocative, it's in keeping with the characters' ideals and methods, and frankly I will die on the hill labeled "A DM should never get in the way of players trying to work together and employ close teamwork if she can possibly, remotely help it."
Our table's actually evolved rules to help with this, since we've had similar issues pop up more than once. Players that want to coordinate actions can combine their Initiative - the player with the lowest Initiative roll becomes the new Initiative point for all the players trying to coordinate, and when that point comes up in initiative the players take their turns concurrently. It allows them to move in unison and focus their actions towards accomplishing a task other than "hit it till it stops moving". We've found it to be a clean solution for doing stuff like one character giving another a boost up to a roof, before turning and hauling the buddy up himself, to get better positioning in the fight and survey the area for other threats (in one specific instance), or allowing the Oath of Glory paladin to actually do what his class features say he's doing and shuttle the team quickly across a busy battlefield we needed to escape through using his increased movement aura.
Were those three players running by our table's rule, they could've matched initiative to the lowest roll and moved concurrently. As a DM, I might've given anyone immediately behind those three cover from ranged attacks. Total cover, maybe not, but some cover. Because the players were putting themselves in the way and acting like heroes invested in their party's survival and success, and I don't see a reason to punish them for that or tell them no. Because selflessly putting your armor between your friends and hostile enemies is cool.
That's 'Rule of Cool' to me. Not necessarily just obnoxious and inappropriate anime grandstanding (though I love me some appropriate anime grandstanding when the player senses their proper ****in' moment and goes for it, I'm super ****in' down for that shit too), but actually cool things like being the heroes they're calling themselves or upholding the fun of the game. 'Cool' means making the story we're all playing more amazing to tell, and that bar is generally higher than just DIO DA-ing and trying to turn the game into a shitty Internet meme.
Please do not contact or message me.
I’m very cool with players trying to do creative things as a DM. The only thing I dislike is when they act like they get OP benefits for doing it. If a player tries to do something and then they say what mechanical benefit they should get from it, I would say “you can try that action, but I am ruling it differently.” Generally if the player just wants to be creative then it’s all good, and I love creative actions that isn’t “I use battleaxe”. It’s just when the player says that he/she should get (insert benefit here that’s OP) then it becomes a problem. Like maybe instead of a fire spell melting a whole ice wall, I would tell the player to make an Arcana check with their spellcasting stat replacing intelligence if they are not a wizard or artificer to see how potent the spell would be at melting the ice. On a natural 20, ok they can have the whole ice melt, but with something else, I’d give less of a benefit.
I personally feel the best way to handle a player trying to do something cool, is to leave it to the dice generally.
The shield thing was a great idea, although I think it was ruled in a wrong way by the DM.
I don’t think the cleric player is trying to do anything harmful, they just want to have fun. Maybe a talk with the DM, and the cleric player would make things go right. Although, the cleric is definitely trying to exploit rules with the foot thing. That would just be a blatant no from me. Again, I don’t think any harm is intended, although there is a bit of exploitation that should be politely talked about.
In my experience, using the Ignore button is just as useful as plugging your nose to avoid the smell of skunk spray. Sure, it blocks some of it out, but a lot of it still finds a way through, whether it be through someone quoting the Ignored person or the thread being derailed by an invisible person you can neither see nor directly respond to. That's why I tend to avoid using the Ignore button, and I won't be pressured by you into hitting it on your account. If you don't want to see my posts, why don't you go and Ignore me?
If you make a thread for the sole purpose of hating on a major group of the D&D player base who have done absolutely nothing to hurt you, people (including me) are going to respond with our suggestions. Many of them will do so much less neighborly than I did.
Oh boy, it is.
Not the point that you're trying to make ;)
The point you're trying to make, based on your posts in this thread, history posting on this site, and the literal title of the thread is that people who find Rule of Cool and creative problem solving in D&D fun in D&D are playing D&D wrong and are deserving of hatred.
The point that comes across is a problem player whining about their DM and fellow players behind their back and smack-talking them for even verbally considering some possible choices that lay outside of the RAW. (And I mean no disrespect by saying "problem player" here, I'm just using it for a lack of a better term. It's merely a fact that any player that rules lawyers with a DM that is a bit less strict on being RAW is going to be a problem player at that table. This is true just as it is true that a pacifist would be a problem player at a murderhobo party.)
And your explicit statement is wrong. You cannot prove it. It goes against the laws of D&D, that D&D cannot be "wrong" unless people are not having fun at the table due to the way they are playing it and it is not directly negatively affecting outside of the table.
I agree with your DM's sentiment that Rules Minutia often get in the way of creativity and fun at the table. Somatic components are minutia, and have nothing to do with balance. It neither takes more creativity to have fun inside the rules than outside of it. However, creativity will be more restrained by the RAW than by the Rule of Cool. Sometimes there are not rules for things that can/will come up in gameplay, so the DM will have to create a ruling outside of the RAW.
For example, as a player, the opportunity for my character to become Lord of a town named Ascore arose, and I took it. The table unanimously decided to pause the main quest as my character figured out how to get my tiny village to get a profit and grow into a suitable home base for our party. How did we do this within the RAW? There's no rules for growing towns in the PHB or DMG. By your obviously dominant opinion ;) that anything outside of RAW being "bad playing", so to try to do this is clearly against the spirit of D&D and thus should not be attempted, right?
Wrong. Using dozens of internet searches for price ratios of goats to cheese, and finding general prices of wood, we were able to create rough rules for how much a small village could make in money each month from selling a combination of goat cheese, glass, and lumber. We all had a great time doing this, spending about a year of in-game downtime expanding our city and playing Expand-the-City in D&D before picking up the main quest again.
There's a difference between not keeping track of spell slots and trying to avoid obeying spell component rules. I personally find not keeping track of spell slots more egregious than trying to do somatic components with a foot, as the former is a matter of balance while the latter is a flavor rule. Like I said above, I deal with players new to 5e all the time, so I constantly have to remind them of the rules and to keep track of spell slots/superiority dice.
Again, I will stress to you that you should stop playing with this group and try to find a group that better suits your tastes instead of trying to bend them to your will. You're not the DM, and you're not morally superior to them due to your knowledge of the rules. Don't try to pretend otherwise, because you're not better than anyone due to your knowledge (this applies to any subject. It is the job of the informed to help inform the uninformed, but that doesn't give you a higher rank than them).
Then stop playing with them and go find another group. It's as simple as that.
And this is where you are objectively wrong. Fun cannot be wrong unless people at the table are not having fun and the fun doesn't directly negatively impact others outside of the table. A table of murderhobos are playing D&D correctly as long as they are having fun and aren't hurting anyone in real life. The same is true for tables of powergameres, ultra-roleplayers, old-school players, new-fashioned players, and so on. If everyone at your table would be having fun with the way they're playing the game, they are playing the game correctly, and it would be wrong for you to try and change that or call them bad/weak for their playstyle. It is dickish behavior and comes across as a kid whining that they don't get to blow out the candles at their brother's birthday party.
Understood?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
You said that they were fairly new to 5e. Unless I understand incorrectly, previous editions worked differently from 5e in many ways, including spellcasting. I would just say that you probably shouldn't judge someone so harshly.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
No one is saying the conduct of the table is intentionally malicious. But that's the problem with this sort (not all sorts) of "rule of cool" rule bending: it's disregarding the rules to spotlight the "creativity" of a particular player in this instance and with detrimental consequences to the agency of other PCs. The Hafling scout had actions that should be available to him but the DM denied him on account of the shield maneuver the DM was indulging, even though Halfling characters are often specifically selected for that mobility benefit.
Don't get me wrong, I'll reward/grant actions that might nudge the measuring tape a bit on the battle map more than let the battlemap dictate the game (reminds me of my stance in another thread by this thread's OP). But I really prefer players who are considerate of the capabilities of other characters, and gives them space to perform, rather than be "creative" at a way that controls the scene and the group and actually takes away what should be valid moves in the encounter. Again, of course it's not intentional. That's the problem with arrogance and privileging ideas over others, it's often done with an embarrassing lack of self-awareness. The biggest evangelist of the Rule of Cool, if you pay attention, is very intentional about giving space as opposed to letting characters overly pull focus (pulling focus is a pretty good staging/dramatic concept DMs should be aware of and know when and how to correct in game). Most players and many DMs who seek license via Rule of Cool aren't, which is again one of the blowbacks of the Mercer effect, not a game crippling one but one DMs and Players should be aware of.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
This is good stuff. Agree completely with your post.
Ugh. No disrespect, Midnight', but in a thread where players get painted as "not very good" as if that'd be a pertinent argument bringing up they're also arrogant and lacking in self-awareness is a little bit ironic and maybe not the best look.
I don't really care who's the "better" player at that table, whatever that even means. I do know that being the better player doesn't bestow any moral authority over how people should have fun. I also know throwing a tantrum is unlikely to improve anything. In that regard I'm happy Vince held back (and I think it was fortunate this wasn't an in person game), I hope he'll keep the drama minimal if he does decide to walk away next session, but getting this worked up over this situation? That's not great.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
No worries, my responses have been with my MAXIMUM VINCE FILTRATION goggles (tm, Midnightplat 2021) on, so I agree he presents his opposition needlessly antagonistically, if you astronaut suit up against the vitriol I think there's actually the possibility there's a sort of DM deference to "creativity" being done here that's actually detrimental to the broader table's agency. I was one of the earlier respondents, coaching on the "you may be right what you say, but the way you say it" gang as well as "quitting mid session will accomplish nothing but give you the rep as someone who rage quits." Third's late intervention style which belabors the personality read and become Vince personality focused just doesn't accomplish much other than diverting into a recycling of that perennial personality conflict. I prefer to let the tone speak for itself, let it alone, and then mine out productive spaces within the screed which anyone could make use of and try to give some constructive feedback (like the other thread about a circle of darkness being plopped on a map where I was pointing out the fault was actually in how the group was using the VTT as opposed to some sort of logical absurden take down of metagaming prohibitions.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'm pretty sure Vince words things the way he does to get the discussion fired up... which you cannot deny he did (got it fired up, I mean).
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Insulting people for disagreeing with you is not "getting the discussion fired up."
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.