The Problem With Talking About D&D

Matt: "I'm just expressing how I see things and I don't really have a solution" also Matt: "Anyways, here's a solution"

Every time Matt says "encounter design doesnt stop once you've rolled initiative," it makes me very happy. I often feel like "if I were a better DM, I'd know how to balance this encounter properly ahead of time." When really there is just no way you can account for everything beforehand, it's okay to make adjustments behind the screen, during combat, as long as you keep suspension of disbelief.

One of the values in the "L5R Code" was "how well do you know the rules?" The highest possible answer was "I am Zen Faulks" who was the L5R NetRep. The next highest answer was "I live in L.A." Which was a fun way of communicating the fact that the company who made the game was located just outside of Los Angeles and they were nearly omnipresent at the local game stores and conventions. So if you played at an L5R tourney in SoCal, it was very likely folks from the company, maybe even the designers, would be there. As a result, L.A. area players had this reputation for being "closest" to the rules. On the cutting edge, so to speak. Because the dev team would often have to make a ruling on a card combo on the fly and then that would get communicated to the wider player base by whoever was at that tournament.

One thing I really appreciate about Matt's videos is that it never feels like he's lecturing you, which is an unfortunate tendency some longtime DMs (or really people with any type of expertise) do have at times. He shares advice, experiences, war stories and suggestions, without ever giving me the feeling that he's trying to convince me I've been doing this all wrong for the past 20 years. His videos feel more like a friend sharing war stories, and instead of saying things along the lines of "this is how it should be done", and his stories actually pique my curiosity and motivate me to try new things just because his stories are always so compelling. In other words, he makes me WANT to try new things in my games, rather than making me feel like I HAVE to do them. He's making becoming a better DM a more enjoyable experience, and even after well over two decades of being a DM I'm still gaining new insights thanks to these videos. Thanks Matt!

So glad this was another spot-on video and not just an April Fools joke

My tables historically have been non-confrontational/RP heavy. There was a time where I threw a room full of kobolds at the party, and the Bard persuaded them that they would have a better quality of life and working conditions if they helped the party instead. I then had to give each kobold a name and a personality 🤣 The things you don't prepare for tend to be the most fun, it seems.

Variation between tables is such a crucial part of the game that I don't see talked about enough. I've run plenty of different systems with plenty of different GMs, yet the main variable determining how much fun was had at each table was primarily dictated by things like house rules and how many people were in the group, and how those people meshed together. Because of that, it's incredibly difficult to talk about things like the rules in absolutely good or absolutely bad terms. Another great video, as always!

I've been reading Jon Peterson's Elusive Shift, which talks about precisely the codification of different playstyles and the eventual rise of the concept of Role play as the main identifier of the game from these categories

The most recent additional dimension to the MC game alignment chart is online play versus in-person play. The game dynamic is significantly different - partly to do with difficulty in side conversations online, engagement with digital tools, and the subtle influence of spatial comfort and human interaction. One can imagine that some combination of system and online/offline would be better than others.

6:06 The class that epitomizes this for me is the monk. Many a time, I've seen people talk about the nitty gritty of game balance and how monk falls off compared to other martial classes. Maybe it's true, but it's never been the case at my table. For one reason or another, my players have generally come to see the monk as an epic frontliner, and I feel like that has something to do with the way I run the game. I'd love to know what, but that's something only myself and my players can figure out c:

Wow, a detailed signature about someone's experience in a topic would be SO USEFUL in online discussion in any space. Being able to just quickly realize "oh this persons experience is very different from mine and heres a starting point for understanding that" would save me a lot of wasted time. I worry that it would immediately be abused or used to gatekeep though. If wargamers tried to invalidate anyones opinion who liked roleplay for example, most people wouldnt even share that info anymore. Back in the overwatch days we realized some people would check your profile to see what character you played, and then bully you into switching if you werent on your main. Didnt matter how well you did: if you have 100 hours on mercy, stop playing dps. They ended up making an option to keep profiles private as a result, which caused new problems.

The idea of of adventures having tags or colors or whatever is such a good idea. Also, it may encourage designers to include notes for bigger or smaller tables, and an easy/hard mode for encounters. I run two tables and the same adventure is very different at the table.

Well said. Almost 50 years of DMing and playing leaves me with this: what is the most challenging and most fun for a DM? Running a game for a set of new players means learning how the players act, what interests them, how they run their characters, and then tweaking your game to make it the most fun for that group of players. We, as DMs, have played as characters abd, sometimes, think our players will play similarly to how we play. That is not often the case.

I've been playing 3.5 since highschool and we have changed so many rules to customize the game to how we play. I'm sure if any hard core player were to hear our rule changes they would burst a blood vessel. (especially our changes to sneak attack) I think every table, that is a tightly knitted friend group or long lasting party, should do this. I understand if you're playing with new people often how it wouldn't work, but if you got a group that you play with all the time, you should really customize the game to work for that group. We also started playing 4e and have already made a couple rule changes and I see more to come when it comes to out of combat scenarios.

Really hope MCDM takes this route if they release adventures.

This video really hits the nail on the head doesn't it! I've been playing D&D for 40 years and every group has been different. Of course many of the rules we have now came from homebrew experimentation and the imagination. And if I had to sum up D&D in one word it would be "Imagination". Be it imagination on how to deal with balance, to new rules, to the story itself. So long as your group is having fun, everything else is up for change.

Hey Matt, I've had similar difficulties with other parts of the gaming community. Take "Vampire Larp" for example; in different cities the definition & practice changes. I think the problem is DM to Player population. Even in online "DM spaces", the number of practicing DMs v. players or DMs-in-waiting is still very low. DMs are the type of people in the hobby that consider what different playstyles and experiences mean to the game. As your channel points out, a good DM sort of has to. Whereas Players often don't consider alternate styles of play. Sure, there are many out there who try all different types of games and playstyles, but I think those players are outnumbered by those who are Audience members, who focus on one system, or are happy with the way they are currently playing. Nevermind the less friendly members of the hobby. All said, D&D at the table is an artistic expression, and that comes from a place of vulnerability. It's hard to defend something personal in public (In my home game, we like X because Y) but something that can be pointed to as objective (often given the sacred reverence of 'canon') can be very impersonal. Saying "look, me and my bros like to laugh and nit-pick the mechanics of combat, so we don't care if they slow down other games because it's fun for us" is a lot harder to say than "the rules are the rules, so you shouldn't ever house-rule X", even if the former is more to the truth. Thanks for the content, Matt! My group is just starting to build a castle using the Stongholds & Followers rules. They are so excited!

Also, each table might vary a bit based on each session. Sometimes I pull something off one night because I had a good night and managed to get my players into just the right place of attention and enjoyment. Other nights I feel like I am just not on my game and feel like I've given them a bad experience. Both my players and I shift a bit in our style from session to session. Hopefully as I get better, it happens less often, but I don't see it never happening.

How would we format the signature tag for this? I play D&D5e, I’m the DM, I have 4 Players, and I run a somewhat west marches style home brew setting. I feel like noting how RAW or flexible we are with the rules is a major factor too. I like what this makes… D&D5e-DM-4P-HB(WM)-Flex

This is why I kinda avoid talking about D&D on certain places on the internet. I once asked a question about how to calculate damage for a certain noodly ability and the only answers I got were 'Oh that stuff is easily countered by doing XYZ'. Not only did they NOT answer my question, they were providing a solution to a problem I did not have... My friends did have a blast that session, so in the end all was well.