All these things happened in a single session of a campaign I am about 8 or 9 sessions into. The DM played in my campaign (which was very by the book) for around 40 sessions before Covid shut us down, and now we play in his online game. The "creative cleric" is an old buddy of his who has not played 5e, nor clearly read any rules wrt 5e.
I am well aware I can't win this fight.
This session was by far the worst for "creativity". The odds are extremely high I will quit mid-session in the next session, as this madness will only get worse. Bottom line, "creative" and "rule of cool" means throwing out the actual rules, anything you can dream of is fine, and the game devolves into chaos. Some of the key takeaway lines in the discussion below:
Creative cleric: "Rule of cool is the separation between roll playing and just playing a board game. If I come up with an idea that adds flavor or story to the game but doesn't adversely change the game why not try it. In my opinion, characters become "cookie cutters " without the rule of cool."
DM: "I think that focusing on the minutia of game mechanics slows down the game and takes away from creativity. If you are not sure if you can do something, try it. If it fails, then you learned that it doesn’t work. If it succeeds, then you have learned that is can work. I don’t want knowledge of a book to stop people from trying new things because creativity is what makes the game fun for me."
All but the Faerie Fire and Dim light issue were initiated by the "creative" cleric, who I will provide excerpts of his rationale later in the post.
So, issues in a single session:
1. Farerie Fire: Bard tells the DM that the original cube of light lingers for the entire duration of the spell, and anyone who steps into it after the initial casting is still subject to the potential effects. DM agrees.
2. The creative cleric, who is 4th level, casts Flame Strike (5th level spell) from a scroll, but there was no DC 15 skill check roll as per the rules.
3. DM decides that attacking in Dim Light is at Disadvantage.
4. We are inside a glacier, and facing two elevated archers parked on shelves/alcoves on massive walls of ice. Creative cleric tells DM he is casting Burning hands at one of the walls, and wants a 15 foot cone of ice to suddenly disappear, collapsing the wall and bringing the archer crashing down. DM says,"No, not that much ice would be dissolved, but enough that the archer is worried and jumps down."
5. Creative cleric asks the DM if he can "touch" a comrade with his foot, with sword in one hand, and shield in the other, to Cure Wounds on the comrade. DM ruled "no" on that one.
6. Creative cleric wants to devise a plan where we lure a monster out of an ice cave by sending in an NPC which yells at the monster, which then chases NPC outside, where we all get "Surprise" on the monster, plus a Readied Action.
7. We are fighting inside the glacier ice cave. Creative cleric devises a plan where he, the NPC, and the fighter all get side by side, forming a shield wall, that moves in unison, forwards or sideways. Fighter then expects that when doing so he can still use his Fighting Style of Protection and/or Sentinel, both of which are Reactions, which conflict with a Readied Action needed to move as a unit.Creative cleric also wants to be able to cast spells after moving like this. DM rules that my Halfling behind said shield wall is not only invulnerable from normal attack (totally wrong), but I am unable to attack from said shield wall as well (also totally wrong).
I bite my tongue in game, except about the totally wrong use of Readied actions to move as one, and then expecting full Action Economy afterwards, which I simply could no longer stay quiet about. I craft a list of all the mistakes in game and send it the DM the next day, which is met with Radio Silence. But then, in Discord, I ask about what was the creative cleric's logic for creating a shield wall. Then comes the nonsense:
Ernie the Lucky — 03/28/2021 So I was going to do this in-char, but it probably works better out of game. Guys, what benefit were you trying to gain with the shield wall last night?
Jorish the Younger — 03/28/2021 Trying not to get all of us stuck full of arrows in a crossfire situation. Seemed to work ok. [11:25 AM] What would you have done?
Ernie the Lucky — 03/28/2021 Well, from a game mechanics point of view, there is no such thing as a crossfire. If we were playing "flanking", which applies to melee attacks, you would have a point. But not from ranged weapons. You guys gave up a lot of attacks to move as a unit. I would have people focus fire on a single target, then move on to the next target.
Jorish the Younger — 03/28/2021 So we turn our back on an elevated archer to concentrate attacks on another elevated archer? I'd rather have my shield full of arrows than my back. From a mechanics point of view what you're suggesting may make sense. From a roll playing point of view, turning your back on an enemy archer is a great way to get dead.
Ernie the Lucky — 03/28/2021 It has been a very long time since I have played other editions of D&D, but are there rules for ranged attacks from behind? [11:52 AM] You have to remember. I am talking 5e here: Every square or hex a player occupies is a zone of control. The player/ NPC does not actually fill all 5 feet. And shields are not tower shields in 5e. You can't form an interlocking wall. Arrows, melee weapons, even Halflings, slip through [11:54 AM] There is always a conflict, or adjustment needed, when meshing role-play with game mechanics.
Jorish the Younger — 03/28/2021 This is where our misunderstanding stems from. In a roll playing situation, my characters try to do what seems most like real life. Its irrelevant if there are rules for ranged attacks from behind or not. To me this is the difference between roll-play and meta-game.
Ernie the Lucky — 03/28/2021 Playing by the rules, and taking in what is presented in-game, is not meta-gaming. Meta-gaming is using out-of-game knowledge. Watching arrows whiz by a shield, and realizing after multiple attacks in-game over different encounters, that there is no benefit to turning your back on an enemy, is not meta-gaming. There is a limit to role-play when it runs up against basic game mechanics. If we were going to RP it to the bone, we would not even engage anyone. There is no way anyone would walk into a cave that clearly has multiple enemies of unknown abilities inside of it.
Jorish the Younger — 03/28/2021 Its clear we are very different players. Let's agree to disagree on this point. Going forward, you run your character as you see fit. I will do the same. Although there may not be rules for ranged attacks from behind, the shieldwall is how I invisioned Jorish handling the situation.
Jorish the Younger — 03/28/2021 I hate discussions like this over electronics. It was not my intent to point fingers or accuse you of meta-gaming. Nor do I want to upset anyone. I'm just trying to get my point across.
Ernie the Lucky — 03/28/2021 I understand that. Let me to to clarify my point of view. Rule 0 is the DM can set up any rules he likes. That being said, I love rules, because then everyone has a common base to work with. Frankly, I think I have a very very good grasp on RAW. I play my char that way. In fact, I actually restrict my char even more than RAW does (ask xxxxx about the encumbrance rules I have created for Ernie). When I see stuff happening in game that goes the against the rules that I know, I get confused as to what my char can and can't do, because I am trying to play within a very strict set of guidelines.
It goes on, and then the "rule of cool" was mentioned:
Ernie the Lucky — 03/28/2021 I have seen games derailed by the "rule of cool" . A Barbarian dropping 50 feet onto the head of a dragon, using gravity to drive his two-handed sword through the eye of the beast, killing it instantly.
Jorish the Younger — 03/28/2021 zzzzz, I don't understand why you seem so upset about the fact that I tried something that although it may not have been an optimal way to use the rules, it wasn't against the rules. [1:25 PM] I don't believe xxxxxx bent any rules, we were still targeted to the point Jorish was concerned about Gundahild's health.
Ernie the Lucky — 03/28/2021 yyyyyy, I have moved on beyond the shield wall thing. Was it against the rules? Not per se. You can skin the cat of what you wanted to do several ways. I am talking in far more general terms of why I like to have a grasp of what rules I am playing under. And why I hate "rule of cool". The shield wall idea does not qualify as "rule of cool". It was an odd tactic, that as far as I am concerned, lengthened the time of the fight, but not something used to gain an advantage outside of the rules.
Jorish the Younger — 03/28/2021 Maybe my view makes me a poor 5e player. I had fun thinking of Jorish, Vargal and Gundahild trying to protect the ranged units. Rule of cool is the separation between roll playing and just playing a board game. If I come up with an idea that adds flavor or story to the game but doesn't adversely change the game why not try it. In my opinion, characters become "cookie cutters " without the rule of cool. The rules say that a fighter fights, a cleric heals, a rogue sneaks and a mage blows things up. I personally get to a point where I get bored with the same old characters. Jorish is a great example. Although he is a cleric in game terms he considers himself a typical fighter. The next cleric I play in whatever system will be very different. Yes rule of cool can prove dangerous if unmentioned by the DM. I love when someone comes up with a great idea that hasn't been done before. Sometimes those ideas don't work, ask xxxxx about cabin boy, but its those ideas that make the game enjoyable and memorable for me.
And then the DM weighed in, and I know I was doomed:
I think that focusing on the minutia of game mechanics slows down the game and takes away from creativity. If you are not sure if you can do something, try it. If it fails, then you learned that it doesn’t work. If it succeeds, then you have learned that is can work. I don’t want knowledge of a book to stop people from trying new things because creativity is what makes the game fun for me. If the rules are followed 100% of the time with no exceptions and everyone one follows the “cookie cutter” play book, as a DM, I will know the outcome of an adventure before we sit down at the table. I will never be surprised as a DM, I love it when players surprise me. [2:54 PM] Here are two quotes I want to share; [2:54 PM] “The essence of a role-playing game is that it is a group, cooperative experience. There is no winning or losing, but rather the value is in the experience of imagining yourself as a character in whatever genre you’re involved in, whether it’s a fantasy game, the Wild West, secret agents or whatever else. You get to sort of vicariously experience those things.” [2:55 PM] “The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that; they don't need any rules.” [2:55 PM] Gary Gygax [2:56 PM] I will run my game using imagination, rules of cool and creativity above all else. I hope you all still want to play, if not, no offence taken.
Why hate people over how they play a game? You don't like it? Fine, walk away, find others who are more likeminded. You're annoying them as much as they annoy you, I expect. Nobody's wrong for playing how they want to play - what's wrong is playing with people you don't want to play with and thinking there's some sort of moral responsibility to be assigned for the fact that doing that isn't fun.
Very few new groups, even if it's just one or two people joining a well-established one, immediately hit it off and get into a groove that's perfect for everyone. Heck, even long-standing groups can still evolve. So you adjust a little, find some common ground everybody's happy with, or you let it go and walk away. Some of the best players and DMs I ever played with did stuff that rubbed me the wrong way at first, and I'm sure they had hoped for me to be a little bit different too. But you talk it out, figure out how to fix it, or you let it go. Some people don't really like D&D - if they still have fun playing the occasional campaign with their friends who love D&D then they'll occasionally play D&D, but if they really can't get into it they'll move on and find a game of Shadowrun, Call of Chtulhu, Star Trek or whatever World of Darkness flavour they prefer instead.
Nobody owes anybody a duty to change their way of having fun. I have friends who love going to sports games. I don't. I'll occasionally go along, maybe twice per year or so, because I do enjoy hanging out with them and I know that in small doses I'll be enjoying that experience. But I'm not going to go out and buy season's tickets. My friends don't expect me to, and I don't expect them not to go see a match every week or every other week. What's the point of begrudging others their enjoyment of something?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
[REDACTED] But I have to say I would also be a bit annoyed by the play style he describes.
That said, I’m not into the judging tone and wouldn’t say the other people are wrong, just that they want a different game from me. I’d like to think I’d just politely excuse myself from the table, wish them well, and find a new game. Probably I wouldn’t have the presence of mind to actually wish them well, but I’d like to think I would.
Notes: Speak to the post, not the author, please; Respectful.
Why hate people over how they play a game? You don't like it? Fine, walk away, find others who are more likeminded. You're annoying them as much as they annoy you, I expect. Nobody's wrong for playing how they want to play - what's wrong is playing with people you don't want to play with and thinking there's some sort of moral responsibility to be assigned for the fact that doing that isn't fun.
Very few new groups, even if it's just one or two people joining a well-established one, immediately hit it off and get into a groove that's perfect for everyone. Heck, even long-standing groups can still evolve. So you adjust a little, find some common ground everybody's happy with, or you let it go and walk away. Some of the best players and DMs I ever played with did stuff that rubbed me the wrong way at first, and I'm sure they had hoped for me to be a little bit different too. But you talk it out, figure out how to fix it, or you let it go. Some people don't really like D&D - if they still have fun playing the occasional campaign with their friends who love D&D then they'll occasionally play D&D, but if they really can't get into it they'll move on and find a game of Shadowrun, Call of Chtulhu, Star Trek or whatever World of Darkness flavour they prefer instead.
Nobody owes anybody a duty to change their way of having fun. I have friends who love going to sports games. I don't. I'll occasionally go along, maybe twice per year or so, because I do enjoy hanging out with them and I know that in small doses I'll be enjoying that experience. But I'm not going to go out and buy season's tickets. My friends don't expect me to, and I don't expect them not to go see a match every week or every other week. What's the point of begrudging others their enjoyment of something?
Different philosophies I can understand. But when basic rules are tossed out the door (Dim light = Disadvantage to attack rolls?????) and considered "minutiae" , or because they get in the way of "story-telling", that transcends any philosophical differences. That is simply bad play, and no longer any semblance to D&D, at least 5e. Since when does Burning Hands, which by RAW, does ZERO damage to a wall of ice, suddenly carve out more volume than the 6th level Disintegrate Spell?
Players (and DM"s) that say "I can't be creative within the constructs of the existing rules, and need rule of cool to express how my character works" are bad players (and DM's). A good player can take the rule set and be creative within it.
And as for my char, I have no clue what he can and can't do, because there are no longer any rules that I can work with. It is all shifting sand. The idea of "try it to find out" is just wrong. I guess when these creative chars state they get to Ready an Action to move as a unit, AND get an additional Reaction, AND a normal Action, I can say "Well, my Rogue gets to attack with two weapons, as well as 2 Reactions, AND Cunning Action, because it is cool."
To me, it is an insult to those that actually make an effort to understand the rules for someone else to either ignore the rules, or just as badly, say "I am not even going to bother reading them, as they will likely just get in my way."
People play the game for different reasons. Let people enjoy things, and find a group that plays the way you enjoy. There is no reason to "hate" anyone for wanting a different experience than you (and I'm putting "hate" in quotes because I'm sincerely hoping that is not the actual emotion you are feeling; if it is, I would sincerely recommend some sort of therapy as that is not a healthy way to express emotion over something so trivial).
Also, quitting mid-session is horribly rude behavior. If you feel this strongly already and anticipate not making it through another session in full, its better to quit prior to the session, so you don't derail the others.
But I have to say I would also be a bit annoyed by the play style he describes.
Mixed bag. Some of the DMs rulings were correct, I assume Vince didn't like something was brought up that needed those rulings. Some things I wouldn't have done as DM, some I probably wouldn't have done but dont have a problem with, some I might have allowed but would have used different mechanics for, etc. I understand where he's coming from, it's convenient to just use the existing rules and nothing but, but that's not really the tradition of D&D I grew up with. We didn't call it the rule of cool or anything like that, but certainly in my AD&D days DMs expected the players to occasionally come up with nonconventional solutions to problems, which those DMs then had to rule on and possibly create a mechanic for on the fly. None of that was unusual or weird, let alone frowned upon. So even if, from the limited perspective on the situation we have from reading one post, I disagree with some of the DM's decisions I don't see anything wrong with the playstyle - particularly since after a number of those rulings the players will get an idea of what might work and what won't with this DM, and ther will be less suggestions the DM needs to turn down.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
But I have to say I would also be a bit annoyed by the play style he describes.
Mixed bag. Some of the DMs rulings were correct, I assume Vince didn't like something was brought up that needed those rulings. Some things I wouldn't have done as DM, some I probably wouldn't have done but dont have a problem with, some I might have allowed but would have used different mechanics for, etc. I understand where he's coming from, it's convenient to just use the existing rules and nothing but, but that's not really the tradition of D&D I grew up with. We didn't call it the rule of cool or anything like that, but certainly in my AD&D days DMs expected the players to occasionally come up with nonconventional solutions to problems, which those DMs then had to rule on and possibly create a mechanic for on the fly. None of that was unusual or weird, let alone frowned upon. So even if, from the limited perspective on the situation we have from reading one post, I disagree with some of the DM's decisions I don't see anything wrong with the playstyle - particularly since after a number of those rulings the players will get an idea of what might work and what won't with this DM, and ther will be less suggestions the DM needs to turn down.
I did not like ANY of the stuff I listed, but the only one I discussed in game was the disaster these guys were making with the Readied Action (or lack thereof) with this shieldwall concept. I kept my mic muted most of the game yelling at an empty room. I emailed the DM hours after the game all of the points above, with links, to all the supporting documentation. Clearly, that is the "minutiae" the DM referred to. When the most basic rules are considered irrelevant, well, it is no longer any game, but just chaos. If a spell, or action, can be anything a player can dream up, regardless of what the rules say, nothing has any value in game.
I can't be creative within the constructs of the existing rules, and need rule of cool to express how my character works
My response would be: find a game in which you can express how your character works within the rules. Lots of RPGs exist. Nothing says you have to play D&D. I promise that I could use 4th edition Champions to express exactly how nearly any character concept they come up with works, fully within the rules. (Whether it's within the GM's campaign points limit would be another question, but in the rules themselves, I could do it. And have, many times.)
If the response is, "Well the group wants to play D&D, not Champions," then I would say, come up with a different concept, one that can be fully expressed within the rules, and put the one that can't be on the back burner until the group plays a different game.
I would further suggest that some of the things they are doing, such as not making a saving throw against a spell that the rules say gives a saving throw, has absolutely nothing at all to do with expressing "how a character works." How does the Dim Light ruling do that? The Faerie Fire ruling? None of that has to do with creativity. Or expressing how a character works.
Creativity is saying something like, "Hey there is a giant mirror behind that monster; can I use it to bounce my scorching ray off to hit him from behind?" The GM figures out how to do that. Creativity is NOT, 'The rules say scorching ray does 1d8 damage, but I feel like my character should do 1d20 damage instead." That's just powergaming.
It's funny how often "the rule of cool" or "creativity" are just excuses to make a character OP.
But when basic rules are tossed out the door (Dim light = Disadvantage to attack rolls?????) and considered "minutiae" , or because they get in the way of "story-telling", that transcends any philosophical differences. That is simply bad play, and no longer any semblance to D&D, at least 5e. Since when does Burning Hands, which by RAW, does ZERO damage to a wall of ice, suddenly carve out more volume than the 6th level Disintegrate Spell?
I mean , to pick out the specific examples:
Dim Light: 5E has three states of light - bright, dim, darkness - and honestly they're pretty abrupt. Brilliant moonlight: dim; regular moonlight: heaviliy obscured - and heavily obscured gives the same penalty as being blinded. You basically go from having a bit of trouble making something out you'd normally notice just fine to feeling like you're blindfolded, nothing in between. I probably wouldn't take the trouble of houseruling this to come up with an additional intermediate effect or outright changing the effect of one of the conditions, but I wouldn't have a problem with a DM telling me that a particular cave was so gloomy I'd have some difficulty landing attacks, but not gloomy enough that I'd feel blind.
Burning Hands: your DM said it didn't work, so this wasn't tossed out the door?
So, prefer-to-walk-away territory? Not really, not for me anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The only egregious points to me are 1 and 7. You have, for some reason, included examples where your DM has upheld the RAW. Are you just mad someone was asking? Have some patience.
As for the dim light, I suspect that you heard the DM say dim light and decided that was the official term. Maybe what the DM was envisioning wasn’t dim light as written. As long as he was consistent with the ruling I don’t see an issue. :)
The best tip is to find a group that wants to play how you want to play. That answer has already been said a lot and seems pretty obvious... hence the troll alarms going off...!
I emailed the DM hours after the game all of the points above, with links, to all the supporting documentation.
Yeah, no offense, but that would have annoyed me. Not kick-you-from-the-group annoyed, just why-not-just-explain-how-you-feel-but-immediately-list-your-grievances-and-tell-me-I-don't-know-the-rules annoyed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
But when basic rules are tossed out the door (Dim light = Disadvantage to attack rolls?????) and considered "minutiae" , or because they get in the way of "story-telling", that transcends any philosophical differences. That is simply bad play, and no longer any semblance to D&D, at least 5e. Since when does Burning Hands, which by RAW, does ZERO damage to a wall of ice, suddenly carve out more volume than the 6th level Disintegrate Spell?
I mean , to pick out the specific examples:
Dim Light: 5E has three states of light - bright, dim, darkness - and honestly they're pretty abrupt. Brilliant moonlight: dim; regular moonlight: heaviliy obscured - and heavily obscured gives the same penalty as being blinded. You basically go from having a bit of trouble making something out you'd normally notice just fine to feeling like you're blindfolded, nothing in between. I probably wouldn't take the trouble of houseruling this to come up with an additional intermediate effect or outright changing the effect of one of the conditions, but I wouldn't have a problem with a DM telling me that a particular cave was so gloomy I'd have some difficulty landing attacks, but not gloomy enough that I'd feel blind.
Burning Hands: your DM said it didn't work, so this wasn't tossed out the door?
So, prefer-to-walk-away territory? Not really, not for me anyway.
The DM explicitly said it was Dim light, nothing more or less, with no suggestion that it was closer to darkness. He said we would see the archers in the light.
For Burning Hands, the DM said "It does not carve out a 15 foot cone, but enough ice that the archer jumped down because he thought his position was unstable." That is 100% incorrect, when one looks at the actual spell. It does NOTHING to a wall of ice. The player either did not read the spell at all, or thought "screw it, I am going to see how far I can push this."
The only thing the DM got right was when the Cleric wanted to touch the target with his foot for Cure Wounds. And even that is cagey, because one must assume the Cleric's Holy symbol is emblazoned on his shield, which the player has never discussed.
I can't be creative within the constructs of the existing rules, and need rule of cool to express how my character works
My response would be: find a game in which you can express how your character works within the rules. Lots of RPGs exist. Nothing says you have to play D&D. I promise that I could use 4th edition Champions to express exactly how nearly any character concept they come up with works, fully within the rules. (Whether it's within the GM's campaign points limit would be another question, but in the rules themselves, I could do it. And have, many times.)
If the response is, "Well the group wants to play D&D, not Champions," then I would say, come up with a different concept, one that can be fully expressed within the rules, and put the one that can't be on the back burner until the group plays a different game.
I would further suggest that some of the things they are doing, such as not making a saving throw against a spell that the rules say gives a saving throw, has absolutely nothing at all to do with expressing "how a character works." How does the Dim Light ruling do that? The Faerie Fire ruling? None of that has to do with creativity. Or expressing how a character works.
Creativity is saying something like, "Hey there is a giant mirror behind that monster; can I use it to bounce my scorching ray off to hit him from behind?" The GM figures out how to do that. Creativity is NOT, 'The rules say scorching ray does 1d8 damage, but I feel like my character should do 1d20 damage instead." That's just powergaming.
It's funny how often "the rule of cool" or "creativity" are just excuses to make a character OP.
In reality, I am more angry with the DM for simply not saying "No, this is not how this stuff works, play within the rules." But if the DM himself does not know the rules, or worse, does not care about them, then yeah, I am in the wrong setting. And yes, the "creative" cleric, who lives by the "rule of cool", purely by co-incidence, I am sure, has to be the center of attention, and we have to things his way.
House rules MUST be announced beforehand. That is the only thing fair to the players. For my campaign I handed a hard copy to the group, with a soft copy available 24/7.
This Dim light nonsense was just that: We had fought in numerous sessions beforehand under the same conditions. Such a thing is a massive penalty to the martial classes, or my Rogue. I was REALLY anxious to ask what happens in Darkness. Is the player impossible to target with attacks? If so, I am switching to a Shadow Sorcerer or Warlock, and will wreak havoc on this game, until the DM realizes how terrible that ruling would be.
The Scroll use: I am 100% positive the DM had no clue of that rule, and I kept my mouth shut during the game about it. I should have said something right then.
And it is total nonsense to suggest that a player does not know going into a session that he has "to figure it out". Every single player relies on constant rules that they can read and understand, or house rules that are pre-published. And if you think that spell-casters (and DM's) are not pausing play (or reading up between their turns) to read how a spell works, then you must play with people with photographic memories.
I think Vince does have a point where the DM did take away opportunities from Vince's Halfling that should be allowed in the rules in order to rule problematically or indulge another players desire to be a tactical genius contra technicalities of the rules. Having a character sidelined/cocooned for the sake of another player's dictates in my view "isn't cool." So I think airing the grievance in the fashion outlined is a fair way to address how this group plays the game and Vince's frustrations within it.
Let's also keep in mind "house rules" are a thing, but it sounds like this whole scenario was adjudicated on the fly. So these sound like more grantings via an entertained DM (the dark secret of Rule of Cool is there's usually pandering involved) than some sort of appeal to how the table usually does things.
That said, framing this around forecasting leaving the table mid session also "isn't cool." A mid session exit is a dramatic gesture, almost sort of a meta act of cool, that isn't going to teach anyone anything so can only be construed as an act of vanity. You've already made an effort to "teach" the group how its way of going about the game hampers the way you want to play your character. For whatever reason, they are insensitive of it. That may be not cool, but layering cool on cool just leads to cold. I'd recommend either deciding to abandon the game ahead of session, or make the next session your Alamo for your play style, highlighting where you see "the cool characters" shining moments pull too much focus on that players "creativity" and in so doing disenfranchise other characters chance to do something in the light (or dim light or whatever atmospheric parameters are set). If it ain't a good time, you've said your peace and probably is a time to play more your way.
In my gaming experience, I've never had a player leave mid session as DM or GM, I like to think because I have +10 nice guy and high WIS and CHR, but it's more likely the fortune of who I've played with. I've been at tables when it's happened twice, and in those instances and every instance I can think of where a player left mid game, never has the conversational/community/"game scene" discussion gone "you know, when that dude up and left, they had a point and we should all commend that person for the lesson we've subsequently learned about playing the game." It's always been a negative mark on the bailing player, outshining whatever principle was supposedly being defended, and inevitably something they have had to overcome within their gaming circle, since most players will just assume "rage quit" and really won't sit through an essay rationalizing the act.
House rules MUST be announced beforehand. That is the only thing fair to the players. For my campaign I handed a hard copy to the group, with a soft copy available 24/7.
This Dim light nonsense was just that: We had fought in numerous sessions beforehand under the same conditions. Such a thing is a massive penalty to the martial classes, or my Rogue. I was REALLY anxious to ask what happens in Darkness. Is the player impossible to target with attacks? If so, I am switching to a Shadow Sorcerer or Warlock, and will wreak havoc on this game, until the DM realizes how terrible that ruling would be.
The Scroll use: I am 100% positive the DM had no clue of that rule, and I kept my mouth shut during the game about it. I should have said something right then.
And it is total nonsense to suggest that a player does not know going into a session that he has "to figure it out". Every single player relies on constant rules that they can read and understand, or house rules that are pre-published. And if you think that spell-casters (and DM's) are not pausing play (or reading up between their turns) to read how a spell works, then you must play with people with photographic memories.
I totally concur on the house rules, I always tell my players what's allowed, what's not, and why.
House rules MUST be announced beforehand. That is the only thing fair to the players. For my campaign I handed a hard copy to the group, with a soft copy available 24/7.
This Dim light nonsense was just that: We had fought in numerous sessions beforehand under the same conditions. Such a thing is a massive penalty to the martial classes, or my Rogue. I was REALLY anxious to ask what happens in Darkness. Is the player impossible to target with attacks? If so, I am switching to a Shadow Sorcerer or Warlock, and will wreak havoc on this game, until the DM realizes how terrible that ruling would be.
The Scroll use: I am 100% positive the DM had no clue of that rule, and I kept my mouth shut during the game about it. I should have said something right then.
And it is total nonsense to suggest that a player does not know going into a session that he has "to figure it out". Every single player relies on constant rules that they can read and understand, or house rules that are pre-published. And if you think that spell-casters (and DM's) are not pausing play (or reading up between their turns) to read how a spell works, then you must play with people with photographic memories.
I totally concur on the house rules, I always tell my players what's allowed, what's not, and why.
And you have a huge point on the player, he should know the rules, and he should not expect any "Rules of cool" from the DM, I honestly don't understand what he's thinking, but idk.
House rules MUST be announced beforehand. That is the only thing fair to the players. For my campaign I handed a hard copy to the group, with a soft copy available 24/7.
I'm going to have to disagree with you here, my friend.
Yes, of course, any house rules the DM has going in, must be announced and agreed to beforehand.
However, sometimes things come up in live play that require the DM to make a ruling on the spot, and afterwards the table decides to "house rule" something to avoid having to "make it up on the spot" in the future. Such adjustments mid-stream must be allowed to happen. Of course, once this new House Rule is made, it must be added to the document and a new round of print-outs (or PDFs or whatever they are) distributed.
As an example, I have a player who was itching to take counterspell -- because, I think, he expected it to work the way he has seen it on one of the popular D&D shows. That is, the DM announces the spell being cast and the level at which it is being cast, and the player can then, ex post facto, decide if he wants to counterspell. This is, of course, not what it says in the rules. So I posted a house rule ahead of time, that per RAW, and per XGE, it takes a reaction to ID a spell, and a reaction to counterspell, and thus one can do one, or the other, but not both. Either you counterspell "blind" or you ID the spell but then can't counter. He was very unhappy with this (mostly because he saw it as a 'nerf' to the spell), and we had a long conversation. In it, he succeeded in convincing me that there would be no reason to ID a spell as a reaction, if you can't do anything about it. And I decided he had a point -- why, really, would anyone bother, since the act of IDing it precluded any possible reaction to the spell once you know which one is going off? At the same time I had seen a rule here, I think from Pantagruel, saying if they successfully ID a spell he allows his players to cast CS as part of the reaction. I offered this as a compromise and my player agreed it was reasonable. I then changed the standing house rule, and sent out an email informing all the players of this change and why we made it.
In my view this sort of thing is not only legit but must be done from time to time... as we see in live play how a rule is working, we have to decide if we like it or not, and whether we need to change it or not. One cannot expect a DM to know all the possible house rules we will need from Day 1 -- especially not if the DM has never run 5e before (as I, at the time I wrote my house rule document, had not).
(Long post, but should read quickly enough)
All these things happened in a single session of a campaign I am about 8 or 9 sessions into. The DM played in my campaign (which was very by the book) for around 40 sessions before Covid shut us down, and now we play in his online game. The "creative cleric" is an old buddy of his who has not played 5e, nor clearly read any rules wrt 5e.
I am well aware I can't win this fight.
This session was by far the worst for "creativity". The odds are extremely high I will quit mid-session in the next session, as this madness will only get worse. Bottom line, "creative" and "rule of cool" means throwing out the actual rules, anything you can dream of is fine, and the game devolves into chaos. Some of the key takeaway lines in the discussion below:
Creative cleric: "Rule of cool is the separation between roll playing and just playing a board game. If I come up with an idea that adds flavor or story to the game but doesn't adversely change the game why not try it. In my opinion, characters become "cookie cutters " without the rule of cool."
DM: "I think that focusing on the minutia of game mechanics slows down the game and takes away from creativity. If you are not sure if you can do something, try it. If it fails, then you learned that it doesn’t work. If it succeeds, then you have learned that is can work. I don’t want knowledge of a book to stop people from trying new things because creativity is what makes the game fun for me."
All but the Faerie Fire and Dim light issue were initiated by the "creative" cleric, who I will provide excerpts of his rationale later in the post.
So, issues in a single session:
1. Farerie Fire: Bard tells the DM that the original cube of light lingers for the entire duration of the spell, and anyone who steps into it after the initial casting is still subject to the potential effects. DM agrees.
2. The creative cleric, who is 4th level, casts Flame Strike (5th level spell) from a scroll, but there was no DC 15 skill check roll as per the rules.
3. DM decides that attacking in Dim Light is at Disadvantage.
4. We are inside a glacier, and facing two elevated archers parked on shelves/alcoves on massive walls of ice. Creative cleric tells DM he is casting Burning hands at one of the walls, and wants a 15 foot cone of ice to suddenly disappear, collapsing the wall and bringing the archer crashing down. DM says,"No, not that much ice would be dissolved, but enough that the archer is worried and jumps down."
5. Creative cleric asks the DM if he can "touch" a comrade with his foot, with sword in one hand, and shield in the other, to Cure Wounds on the comrade. DM ruled "no" on that one.
6. Creative cleric wants to devise a plan where we lure a monster out of an ice cave by sending in an NPC which yells at the monster, which then chases NPC outside, where we all get "Surprise" on the monster, plus a Readied Action.
7. We are fighting inside the glacier ice cave. Creative cleric devises a plan where he, the NPC, and the fighter all get side by side, forming a shield wall, that moves in unison, forwards or sideways. Fighter then expects that when doing so he can still use his Fighting Style of Protection and/or Sentinel, both of which are Reactions, which conflict with a Readied Action needed to move as a unit.Creative cleric also wants to be able to cast spells after moving like this. DM rules that my Halfling behind said shield wall is not only invulnerable from normal attack (totally wrong), but I am unable to attack from said shield wall as well (also totally wrong).
I bite my tongue in game, except about the totally wrong use of Readied actions to move as one, and then expecting full Action Economy afterwards, which I simply could no longer stay quiet about. I craft a list of all the mistakes in game and send it the DM the next day, which is met with Radio Silence. But then, in Discord, I ask about what was the creative cleric's logic for creating a shield wall. Then comes the nonsense:
Ernie the Lucky — 03/28/2021
So I was going to do this in-char, but it probably works better out of game. Guys, what benefit were you trying to gain with the shield wall last night?
Jorish the Younger — 03/28/2021
Trying not to get all of us stuck full of arrows in a crossfire situation. Seemed to work ok.
[11:25 AM]
What would you have done?
Ernie the Lucky — 03/28/2021
Well, from a game mechanics point of view, there is no such thing as a crossfire. If we were playing "flanking", which applies to melee attacks, you would have a point. But not from ranged weapons. You guys gave up a lot of attacks to move as a unit. I would have people focus fire on a single target, then move on to the next target.
Jorish the Younger — 03/28/2021
So we turn our back on an elevated archer to concentrate attacks on another elevated archer? I'd rather have my shield full of arrows than my back. From a mechanics point of view what you're suggesting may make sense. From a roll playing point of view, turning your back on an enemy archer is a great way to get dead.
Ernie the Lucky — 03/28/2021
It has been a very long time since I have played other editions of D&D, but are there rules for ranged attacks from behind?
[11:52 AM]
You have to remember. I am talking 5e here: Every square or hex a player occupies is a zone of control. The player/ NPC does not actually fill all 5 feet. And shields are not tower shields in 5e. You can't form an interlocking wall. Arrows, melee weapons, even Halflings, slip through
[11:54 AM]
There is always a conflict, or adjustment needed, when meshing role-play with game mechanics.
Jorish the Younger — 03/28/2021
This is where our misunderstanding stems from. In a roll playing situation, my characters try to do what seems most like real life. Its irrelevant if there are rules for ranged attacks from behind or not. To me this is the difference between roll-play and meta-game.
Ernie the Lucky — 03/28/2021
Playing by the rules, and taking in what is presented in-game, is not meta-gaming. Meta-gaming is using out-of-game knowledge. Watching arrows whiz by a shield, and realizing after multiple attacks in-game over different encounters, that there is no benefit to turning your back on an enemy, is not meta-gaming. There is a limit to role-play when it runs up against basic game mechanics. If we were going to RP it to the bone, we would not even engage anyone. There is no way anyone would walk into a cave that clearly has multiple enemies of unknown abilities inside of it.
Jorish the Younger — 03/28/2021
Its clear we are very different players. Let's agree to disagree on this point. Going forward, you run your character as you see fit. I will do the same. Although there may not be rules for ranged attacks from behind, the shieldwall is how I invisioned Jorish handling the situation.
Jorish the Younger — 03/28/2021
I hate discussions like this over electronics. It was not my intent to point fingers or accuse you of meta-gaming. Nor do I want to upset anyone. I'm just trying to get my point across.
Ernie the Lucky — 03/28/2021
I understand that. Let me to to clarify my point of view. Rule 0 is the DM can set up any rules he likes. That being said, I love rules, because then everyone has a common base to work with. Frankly, I think I have a very very good grasp on RAW. I play my char that way. In fact, I actually restrict my char even more than RAW does (ask xxxxx about the encumbrance rules I have created for Ernie). When I see stuff happening in game that goes the against the rules that I know, I get confused as to what my char can and can't do, because I am trying to play within a very strict set of guidelines.
It goes on, and then the "rule of cool" was mentioned:
Ernie the Lucky — 03/28/2021
I have seen games derailed by the "rule of cool" . A Barbarian dropping 50 feet onto the head of a dragon, using gravity to drive his two-handed sword through the eye of the beast, killing it instantly.
Jorish the Younger — 03/28/2021
zzzzz, I don't understand why you seem so upset about the fact that I tried something that although it may not have been an optimal way to use the rules, it wasn't against the rules.
[1:25 PM]
I don't believe xxxxxx bent any rules, we were still targeted to the point Jorish was concerned about Gundahild's health.
Ernie the Lucky — 03/28/2021
yyyyyy, I have moved on beyond the shield wall thing. Was it against the rules? Not per se. You can skin the cat of what you wanted to do several ways. I am talking in far more general terms of why I like to have a grasp of what rules I am playing under. And why I hate "rule of cool". The shield wall idea does not qualify as "rule of cool". It was an odd tactic, that as far as I am concerned, lengthened the time of the fight, but not something used to gain an advantage outside of the rules.
Jorish the Younger — 03/28/2021
Maybe my view makes me a poor 5e player. I had fun thinking of Jorish, Vargal and Gundahild trying to protect the ranged units. Rule of cool is the separation between roll playing and just playing a board game. If I come up with an idea that adds flavor or story to the game but doesn't adversely change the game why not try it. In my opinion, characters become "cookie cutters " without the rule of cool. The rules say that a fighter fights, a cleric heals, a rogue sneaks and a mage blows things up. I personally get to a point where I get bored with the same old characters. Jorish is a great example. Although he is a cleric in game terms he considers himself a typical fighter. The next cleric I play in whatever system will be very different. Yes rule of cool can prove dangerous if unmentioned by the DM. I love when someone comes up with a great idea that hasn't been done before. Sometimes those ideas don't work, ask xxxxx about cabin boy, but its those ideas that make the game enjoyable and memorable for me.
And then the DM weighed in, and I know I was doomed:
I think that focusing on the minutia of game mechanics slows down the game and takes away from creativity. If you are not sure if you can do something, try it. If it fails, then you learned that it doesn’t work. If it succeeds, then you have learned that is can work. I don’t want knowledge of a book to stop people from trying new things because creativity is what makes the game fun for me. If the rules are followed 100% of the time with no exceptions and everyone one follows the “cookie cutter” play book, as a DM, I will know the outcome of an adventure before we sit down at the table. I will never be surprised as a DM, I love it when players surprise me.
[2:54 PM]
Here are two quotes I want to share;
[2:54 PM]
“The essence of a role-playing game is that it is a group, cooperative experience. There is no winning or losing, but rather the value is in the experience of imagining yourself as a character in whatever genre you’re involved in, whether it’s a fantasy game, the Wild West, secret agents or whatever else. You get to sort of vicariously experience those things.”
[2:55 PM]
“The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that; they don't need any rules.”
[2:55 PM]
Gary Gygax
[2:56 PM]
I will run my game using imagination, rules of cool and creativity above all else. I hope you all still want to play, if not, no offence taken.
This sounds like you are in the wrong group. I don't think anyone is wrong here, it's just that there are two different philosophies on how to play.
Why hate people over how they play a game? You don't like it? Fine, walk away, find others who are more likeminded. You're annoying them as much as they annoy you, I expect. Nobody's wrong for playing how they want to play - what's wrong is playing with people you don't want to play with and thinking there's some sort of moral responsibility to be assigned for the fact that doing that isn't fun.
Very few new groups, even if it's just one or two people joining a well-established one, immediately hit it off and get into a groove that's perfect for everyone. Heck, even long-standing groups can still evolve. So you adjust a little, find some common ground everybody's happy with, or you let it go and walk away. Some of the best players and DMs I ever played with did stuff that rubbed me the wrong way at first, and I'm sure they had hoped for me to be a little bit different too. But you talk it out, figure out how to fix it, or you let it go. Some people don't really like D&D - if they still have fun playing the occasional campaign with their friends who love D&D then they'll occasionally play D&D, but if they really can't get into it they'll move on and find a game of Shadowrun, Call of Chtulhu, Star Trek or whatever World of Darkness flavour they prefer instead.
Nobody owes anybody a duty to change their way of having fun. I have friends who love going to sports games. I don't. I'll occasionally go along, maybe twice per year or so, because I do enjoy hanging out with them and I know that in small doses I'll be enjoying that experience. But I'm not going to go out and buy season's tickets. My friends don't expect me to, and I don't expect them not to go see a match every week or every other week. What's the point of begrudging others their enjoyment of something?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
[REDACTED] But I have to say I would also be a bit annoyed by the play style he describes.
That said, I’m not into the judging tone and wouldn’t say the other people are wrong, just that they want a different game from me. I’d like to think I’d just politely excuse myself from the table, wish them well, and find a new game. Probably I wouldn’t have the presence of mind to actually wish them well, but I’d like to think I would.
Different philosophies I can understand. But when basic rules are tossed out the door (Dim light = Disadvantage to attack rolls?????) and considered "minutiae" , or because they get in the way of "story-telling", that transcends any philosophical differences. That is simply bad play, and no longer any semblance to D&D, at least 5e. Since when does Burning Hands, which by RAW, does ZERO damage to a wall of ice, suddenly carve out more volume than the 6th level Disintegrate Spell?
Players (and DM"s) that say "I can't be creative within the constructs of the existing rules, and need rule of cool to express how my character works" are bad players (and DM's). A good player can take the rule set and be creative within it.
And as for my char, I have no clue what he can and can't do, because there are no longer any rules that I can work with. It is all shifting sand. The idea of "try it to find out" is just wrong. I guess when these creative chars state they get to Ready an Action to move as a unit, AND get an additional Reaction, AND a normal Action, I can say "Well, my Rogue gets to attack with two weapons, as well as 2 Reactions, AND Cunning Action, because it is cool."
To me, it is an insult to those that actually make an effort to understand the rules for someone else to either ignore the rules, or just as badly, say "I am not even going to bother reading them, as they will likely just get in my way."
People play the game for different reasons. Let people enjoy things, and find a group that plays the way you enjoy. There is no reason to "hate" anyone for wanting a different experience than you (and I'm putting "hate" in quotes because I'm sincerely hoping that is not the actual emotion you are feeling; if it is, I would sincerely recommend some sort of therapy as that is not a healthy way to express emotion over something so trivial).
Also, quitting mid-session is horribly rude behavior. If you feel this strongly already and anticipate not making it through another session in full, its better to quit prior to the session, so you don't derail the others.
Mixed bag. Some of the DMs rulings were correct, I assume Vince didn't like something was brought up that needed those rulings. Some things I wouldn't have done as DM, some I probably wouldn't have done but dont have a problem with, some I might have allowed but would have used different mechanics for, etc. I understand where he's coming from, it's convenient to just use the existing rules and nothing but, but that's not really the tradition of D&D I grew up with. We didn't call it the rule of cool or anything like that, but certainly in my AD&D days DMs expected the players to occasionally come up with nonconventional solutions to problems, which those DMs then had to rule on and possibly create a mechanic for on the fly. None of that was unusual or weird, let alone frowned upon. So even if, from the limited perspective on the situation we have from reading one post, I disagree with some of the DM's decisions I don't see anything wrong with the playstyle - particularly since after a number of those rulings the players will get an idea of what might work and what won't with this DM, and ther will be less suggestions the DM needs to turn down.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I did not like ANY of the stuff I listed, but the only one I discussed in game was the disaster these guys were making with the Readied Action (or lack thereof) with this shieldwall concept. I kept my mic muted most of the game yelling at an empty room. I emailed the DM hours after the game all of the points above, with links, to all the supporting documentation. Clearly, that is the "minutiae" the DM referred to. When the most basic rules are considered irrelevant, well, it is no longer any game, but just chaos. If a spell, or action, can be anything a player can dream up, regardless of what the rules say, nothing has any value in game.
My response would be: find a game in which you can express how your character works within the rules. Lots of RPGs exist. Nothing says you have to play D&D. I promise that I could use 4th edition Champions to express exactly how nearly any character concept they come up with works, fully within the rules. (Whether it's within the GM's campaign points limit would be another question, but in the rules themselves, I could do it. And have, many times.)
If the response is, "Well the group wants to play D&D, not Champions," then I would say, come up with a different concept, one that can be fully expressed within the rules, and put the one that can't be on the back burner until the group plays a different game.
I would further suggest that some of the things they are doing, such as not making a saving throw against a spell that the rules say gives a saving throw, has absolutely nothing at all to do with expressing "how a character works." How does the Dim Light ruling do that? The Faerie Fire ruling? None of that has to do with creativity. Or expressing how a character works.
Creativity is saying something like, "Hey there is a giant mirror behind that monster; can I use it to bounce my scorching ray off to hit him from behind?" The GM figures out how to do that. Creativity is NOT, 'The rules say scorching ray does 1d8 damage, but I feel like my character should do 1d20 damage instead." That's just powergaming.
It's funny how often "the rule of cool" or "creativity" are just excuses to make a character OP.
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.
I mean , to pick out the specific examples:
Dim Light: 5E has three states of light - bright, dim, darkness - and honestly they're pretty abrupt. Brilliant moonlight: dim; regular moonlight: heaviliy obscured - and heavily obscured gives the same penalty as being blinded. You basically go from having a bit of trouble making something out you'd normally notice just fine to feeling like you're blindfolded, nothing in between. I probably wouldn't take the trouble of houseruling this to come up with an additional intermediate effect or outright changing the effect of one of the conditions, but I wouldn't have a problem with a DM telling me that a particular cave was so gloomy I'd have some difficulty landing attacks, but not gloomy enough that I'd feel blind.
Burning Hands: your DM said it didn't work, so this wasn't tossed out the door?
So, prefer-to-walk-away territory? Not really, not for me anyway.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
[REDACTED]
The only egregious points to me are 1 and 7. You have, for some reason, included examples where your DM has upheld the RAW. Are you just mad someone was asking? Have some patience.
As for the dim light, I suspect that you heard the DM say dim light and decided that was the official term. Maybe what the DM was envisioning wasn’t dim light as written. As long as he was consistent with the ruling I don’t see an issue. :)
The best tip is to find a group that wants to play how you want to play. That answer has already been said a lot and seems pretty obvious... hence the troll alarms going off...!
Yeah, no offense, but that would have annoyed me. Not kick-you-from-the-group annoyed, just why-not-just-explain-how-you-feel-but-immediately-list-your-grievances-and-tell-me-I-don't-know-the-rules annoyed.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The DM explicitly said it was Dim light, nothing more or less, with no suggestion that it was closer to darkness. He said we would see the archers in the light.
For Burning Hands, the DM said "It does not carve out a 15 foot cone, but enough ice that the archer jumped down because he thought his position was unstable." That is 100% incorrect, when one looks at the actual spell. It does NOTHING to a wall of ice. The player either did not read the spell at all, or thought "screw it, I am going to see how far I can push this."
The only thing the DM got right was when the Cleric wanted to touch the target with his foot for Cure Wounds. And even that is cagey, because one must assume the Cleric's Holy symbol is emblazoned on his shield, which the player has never discussed.
In reality, I am more angry with the DM for simply not saying "No, this is not how this stuff works, play within the rules." But if the DM himself does not know the rules, or worse, does not care about them, then yeah, I am in the wrong setting. And yes, the "creative" cleric, who lives by the "rule of cool", purely by co-incidence, I am sure, has to be the center of attention, and we have to things his way.
House rules MUST be announced beforehand. That is the only thing fair to the players. For my campaign I handed a hard copy to the group, with a soft copy available 24/7.
This Dim light nonsense was just that: We had fought in numerous sessions beforehand under the same conditions. Such a thing is a massive penalty to the martial classes, or my Rogue. I was REALLY anxious to ask what happens in Darkness. Is the player impossible to target with attacks? If so, I am switching to a Shadow Sorcerer or Warlock, and will wreak havoc on this game, until the DM realizes how terrible that ruling would be.
The Scroll use: I am 100% positive the DM had no clue of that rule, and I kept my mouth shut during the game about it. I should have said something right then.
And it is total nonsense to suggest that a player does not know going into a session that he has "to figure it out". Every single player relies on constant rules that they can read and understand, or house rules that are pre-published. And if you think that spell-casters (and DM's) are not pausing play (or reading up between their turns) to read how a spell works, then you must play with people with photographic memories.
I think Vince does have a point where the DM did take away opportunities from Vince's Halfling that should be allowed in the rules in order to rule problematically or indulge another players desire to be a tactical genius contra technicalities of the rules. Having a character sidelined/cocooned for the sake of another player's dictates in my view "isn't cool." So I think airing the grievance in the fashion outlined is a fair way to address how this group plays the game and Vince's frustrations within it.
Let's also keep in mind "house rules" are a thing, but it sounds like this whole scenario was adjudicated on the fly. So these sound like more grantings via an entertained DM (the dark secret of Rule of Cool is there's usually pandering involved) than some sort of appeal to how the table usually does things.
That said, framing this around forecasting leaving the table mid session also "isn't cool." A mid session exit is a dramatic gesture, almost sort of a meta act of cool, that isn't going to teach anyone anything so can only be construed as an act of vanity. You've already made an effort to "teach" the group how its way of going about the game hampers the way you want to play your character. For whatever reason, they are insensitive of it. That may be not cool, but layering cool on cool just leads to cold. I'd recommend either deciding to abandon the game ahead of session, or make the next session your Alamo for your play style, highlighting where you see "the cool characters" shining moments pull too much focus on that players "creativity" and in so doing disenfranchise other characters chance to do something in the light (or dim light or whatever atmospheric parameters are set). If it ain't a good time, you've said your peace and probably is a time to play more your way.
In my gaming experience, I've never had a player leave mid session as DM or GM, I like to think because I have +10 nice guy and high WIS and CHR, but it's more likely the fortune of who I've played with. I've been at tables when it's happened twice, and in those instances and every instance I can think of where a player left mid game, never has the conversational/community/"game scene" discussion gone "you know, when that dude up and left, they had a point and we should all commend that person for the lesson we've subsequently learned about playing the game." It's always been a negative mark on the bailing player, outshining whatever principle was supposedly being defended, and inevitably something they have had to overcome within their gaming circle, since most players will just assume "rage quit" and really won't sit through an essay rationalizing the act.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
[REDACTED]
I agree with you, this guy should read 5e's rules, but if he doesn't, that's fine.
I honestly wish more people started forums with constructive intent, but that is not the case.
Leave the game if you're not having fun, but don't ruin fun for other people.
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
I totally concur on the house rules, I always tell my players what's allowed, what's not, and why.
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
And you have a huge point on the player, he should know the rules, and he should not expect any "Rules of cool" from the DM, I honestly don't understand what he's thinking, but idk.
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
I'm going to have to disagree with you here, my friend.
Yes, of course, any house rules the DM has going in, must be announced and agreed to beforehand.
However, sometimes things come up in live play that require the DM to make a ruling on the spot, and afterwards the table decides to "house rule" something to avoid having to "make it up on the spot" in the future. Such adjustments mid-stream must be allowed to happen. Of course, once this new House Rule is made, it must be added to the document and a new round of print-outs (or PDFs or whatever they are) distributed.
As an example, I have a player who was itching to take counterspell -- because, I think, he expected it to work the way he has seen it on one of the popular D&D shows. That is, the DM announces the spell being cast and the level at which it is being cast, and the player can then, ex post facto, decide if he wants to counterspell. This is, of course, not what it says in the rules. So I posted a house rule ahead of time, that per RAW, and per XGE, it takes a reaction to ID a spell, and a reaction to counterspell, and thus one can do one, or the other, but not both. Either you counterspell "blind" or you ID the spell but then can't counter. He was very unhappy with this (mostly because he saw it as a 'nerf' to the spell), and we had a long conversation. In it, he succeeded in convincing me that there would be no reason to ID a spell as a reaction, if you can't do anything about it. And I decided he had a point -- why, really, would anyone bother, since the act of IDing it precluded any possible reaction to the spell once you know which one is going off? At the same time I had seen a rule here, I think from Pantagruel, saying if they successfully ID a spell he allows his players to cast CS as part of the reaction. I offered this as a compromise and my player agreed it was reasonable. I then changed the standing house rule, and sent out an email informing all the players of this change and why we made it.
In my view this sort of thing is not only legit but must be done from time to time... as we see in live play how a rule is working, we have to decide if we like it or not, and whether we need to change it or not. One cannot expect a DM to know all the possible house rules we will need from Day 1 -- especially not if the DM has never run 5e before (as I, at the time I wrote my house rule document, had not).
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.