MY PLAYERS WON'T STOP SAY (MATT MERCER DOES THIS) rant with a question?

[Demonslayer666]

...snip...

But unfortunately, this is a community game. If you're not playng the game your players want to play, then yiu're a **** DM if you continue to force your ethos on the players, if that's what they want.

...snip....

I disagree completely. That does not make you a bad DM. The DM has to have the ability to say no and establish boundaries for the players, and be respected and listened to when a ruling is made.

Players should not whine and complain until they get their way. That would make me quit running the game immediately.

[Sigreid]

I'm a bad person and ex navy. The next time they tried to pull a Mercer does thing I'd be tempted to say something like "we're here to play our game not suck Matt Mercer's @#$%."

[Asmotherion]

Alright... No offence but, here are some follow up questions:

How old are you?
How old is the player in question?
In case the answear to any of the above questions is "above 18", I suppose you should see that this is not a D&D issue, but a group not functioning correctly issue. If not, my bad, I'll explain:

The problem here, is not that your player "powergames", or that he "cheats". It's that you, as a DM allow any other authority at your table to surpass your own authority.

-Matt Mercer says this? That's great, and he's a great DM. At his table. Now, unless he's going to join us and DM for you tonight, you'll stick by my rules and do as I say. No more out of game arguements or comments, or I'm going to add xp penalty to your character.

Now, a side note to that: Don't get into the pitfall of becoming a DM tyrant, or everyone will just leave your game. Try to be as fair as possible, reward creativity, just be strict and respect your own ground rules. Always remember rule 0.

[Arkhios]

How old are you?
How old is the player in question?

Good point, although IMX, 18 is still a bit vague breaking point for adult behaviour

[Asmotherion]

Good point, although IMX, 18 is still a bit vague breaking point for adult behaviour

True, but I guess if they're old enough to legally drink, drive, vote, go to war, raise a kid, and be accounted responsible for criminal behaviour, they should at least make an effort to sort out some minor dispute at a friendly D&D table :P

[Vaz]

I disagree completely. That does not make you a bad DM. The DM has to have the ability to say no and establish boundaries for the players, and be respected and listened to when a ruling is made.

Players should not whine and complain until they get their way. That would make me quit running the game immediately.

As is your right to stop DMing. But it is also their right to enjoy their evening and having a certain expectation to play in a certain way to have a DM who is insistent on playing differently than that IS being a **** DM.

The differs nce here is that the DM is getting uppity because he feels that they are questioning his ability to DM. They aren't, they just have different expectations than him. And a DM who insists on changing things, and going against his players wishes is entirely free to jog on and never return.

[Dudewithknives]

If someone whined that I did not do things like MM, I would be tell them, " I don't have to care about getting views and website hits. Also I have a concept of how to balance homebrew creations. Thanks."

[Arkhios]

As is your right to stop DMing. But it is also their right to enjoy their evening and having a certain expectation to play in a certain way to have a DM who is insistent on playing differently than that IS being a **** DM.

The differs nce here is that the DM is getting uppity because he feels that they are questioning his ability to DM. They aren't, they just have different expectations than him. And a DM who insists on changing things, and going against his players wishes is entirely free to jog on and never return.

To have a fun game depends on mutual agreement upon how the game is run and the rules are viewed. No player (nor Matt Mercer) should be allowed to dictate how the DM should be ruling things. The game is meant to be enjoyed by everyone, including the DM.

If someone is tyrant in that game, it's the players who insist on certain style of play when the DM doesn't agree with it. If you agree to play in someone's game, you are assumed to play by the rules of the DM of that table, not by someone else's rules.

[Tanarii]

I'm probably going to try it again just to see what you mean by that last sentence.

Would you mind expanding on this?

Yeah, not really justified. Because it's judging other play styles and calling someone a Bad DM or Bad Player isn't cool. So instead of saying it makes them bad, here's what I don't like:

He's definitely a Boring DM, and many of his players are Boring Players. Although that's a personal judgment, I know it's not just me. He bores his own players. His players bore the other players. Regularly. He has no decent sense of pacing, and you can regularly see his players getting twitchy.

The other thing I don't personally like is I don't think he or the players are very good at establishing necessary information needed for proper resolution, or the results of it. They're too busy acting to properly communicate what they're attempting to do, or describing results flowerly to give the important details of what has happened. Or setting the scene instead of telling players what they need to know.

It's passable entertainment to watch externally, if you don't mind super slow. It'd be horrible to play in.

[mephnick]

He's definitely a Boring DM, and many of his players are Boring Players. Although that's a personal judgment, I know it's not just me. He bores his own players. His players bore the other players. Regularly. He has no decent sense of pacing, and you can regularly see his players getting twitchy.

This is basically where I'm at with it, which is why I'm always confused the thing is held up as some pinnacle of D&D.

Playing it in the background while I do something else? Yeah it's not bad.

If I had to sit through a 4-5 hour session at the actual table? I'd be drumming my fingers on the table and thinking I should have stayed home and watched hockey.

The only other D&D stream I've watched a bit of was Lumpkin's West Marches campaign. Although the players were not paid actors I found it much more engaging because it felt like real D&D to me.

[Mara]

1. You allowed homebrew. Didn't know the rules. And then were pissed that the player, you perceive as a powergamer, followed his rules. You then took all his stuff next session because he dared correct you. -- this is all you being a little ****.

2. You are mad that your players want to use Matt Mercer's houserules. Why? Are they demanding houserules or just asking? -- this doesn't make sense. Questions don't need rage.

3. You said you wanted to craft a story not play a game. D&D is both. You are wrong for thinking otherwise.

Stop DMing. You have a toxic rage problem. Maybe your players are demanding too much critical role from you, but you really come off as an ass that is getting mad at people for playing a game.

[Anonymouswizard]

He's definitely a Boring DM, and many of his players are Boring Players. Although that's a personal judgment, I know it's not just me. He bores his own players. His players bore the other players. Regularly. He has no decent sense of pacing, and you can regularly see his players getting twitchy.

He also suffers from a full table, which from my experience can be very hard to keep players engaged. I once played in a game with 10-12 players per session, for one GM (which thankfully was not me, I could never do that), and outside of combat you could check your phone and not be caught for twenty minutes. People reacted in different ways, some went for more outlandish characters to get more attention, some went for quieter characters to move everything along. Mercer's table definitely suffers from a lesser version.

But I'm also agreeing on the 'boring DM, boring players' front. I suspect the complete lack of editing is also a problem here, if they filmed it and then had somebody cut the pauses it would be a lot more watchable. He also seems to have relatively little idea that he should try to keep all players engaged, leading to sections where four players are sitting around not interacting for ten minutes at a time while the others have a conversation (again, basing this on one episode).

The other thing I don't personally like is I don't think he or the players are very good at establishing necessary information needed for proper resolution, or the results of it. They're too busy acting to properly communicate what they're attempting to do, or describing results flowerly to give the important details of what has happened. Or setting the scene instead of telling players what they need to know.

I've noticed that, because they're all voice actors there's a bit too much work being put into character voices. But that's personal taste.

But yes, there's a lot of waffling and attempts at sounding grand, whereas I've discovered that the most important thing for a GM at least is to be direct. It's better to be sparse on the details than overly flowerly, because you can fill in later.

It's passable entertainment to watch externally, if you don't mind super slow. It'd be horrible to play in.

Certainly, although I consider it bad D&D.

EDIT: can we all try to keep it civil? I don't want to have to call the mods because this devolves into people hurling insults at each other. We could have some decent discussion about what the OP should do and try to work out why their player is asking to use Mercer's houserules.

[The Cats]

Yeah, not really justified. Because it's judging other play styles and calling someone a Bad DM or Bad Player isn't cool. So instead of saying it makes them bad, here's what I don't like:

He's definitely a Boring DM, and many of his players are Boring Players. Although that's a personal judgment, I know it's not just me. He bores his own players. His players bore the other players. Regularly. He has no decent sense of pacing, and you can regularly see his players getting twitchy.

The other thing I don't personally like is I don't think he or the players are very good at establishing necessary information needed for proper resolution, or the results of it. They're too busy acting to properly communicate what they're attempting to do, or describing results flowerly to give the important details of what has happened. Or setting the scene instead of telling players what they need to know.

It's passable entertainment to watch externally, if you don't mind super slow. It'd be horrible to play in.

Man, I really like Critical Role, but now you've said it I can't unsee it! Maybe I'll stick to the podcasts now so I don't have to see the other players getting fidgety while Liam or Marisha go on another angst ride or Matt decides the quest giver needs more dramatic pauses in her speech to drive the point home.

(I like the angst rides and dramatic pauses, but Travis rolling his eyes gives me empathy pangs)

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm a bad person and ex navy. The next time they tried to pull a Mercer does thing I'd be tempted to say something like "we're here to play our game not suck Matt Mercer's @#$%."

I am also ex Navy, and I support your initiative.

-Matt Mercer says this? That's great, and he's a great DM. At his table. Now, unless he's going to join us and DM for you tonight, you'll stick by my rules and do as I say. No more out of game arguements or comments, or I'm going to add xp penalty to your character.

Good points.

Critique of Mercer and his table

Yes.

1. You allowed homebrew. Didn't know the rules. And then were pissed that the player, you perceive as a powergamer, followed his rules.

That problem was addressed earlier, but it bears repeating. If you allow homebrew, you have to first know what it is so that you know how it fits into the game so that you can make appropriate rulings. That's a DM 101 deal.

[Temperjoke]

Man, I really like Critical Role, but now you've said it I can't unsee it! Maybe I'll stick to the podcasts now so I don't have to see the other players getting fidgety while Liam or Marisha go on another angst ride or Matt decides the quest giver needs more dramatic pauses in her speech to drive the point home.

(I like the angst rides and dramatic pauses, but Travis rolling his eyes gives me empathy pangs)

In fairness, I like to see Critical Role as a microcosm of D&D. I mean, you have a variety of personality types and the characters they've created. And they are committed to these characters that they played for years before the actual Critical Role broadcast got started. I can't even imagine playing the same character for that many years. And as much fidgeting and eye-rolling you see happen from the other players watching, judging from their twitter accounts and interviews, they're doing just as much internal eye-rolling at the same time. They're used to this sort of thing though, in the various roles that they have in their regular work. This is also the consequence of having 7-8 regular players too, plus the odd guest player, in a game that is as much roleplay as it is combat. Travis, for example, built a very optimized character for combat, with a thinner backstory (which developed and expanded over time) compared to some of the other characters, so his character shines more in combat than in the roleplay parts. Matt Mercer also likes to play by the rule of cool, and doesn't like to add time to the slow game by bogging things down by referring back to the rules constantly. After things have ended that night, they have gone back and discussed rulings and corrected things going forward, we just don't see it happen on screen because they don't want to mess with the flow and the fun of the moment.

That's not the worst thing that some tables could adopt, playing by ear during the game then afterwards researching the answer and making a ruling going forward, instead of devolving into pitched arguments over whether something can be done or not.

[Vaz]

To have a fun game depends on mutual agreement upon how the game is run and the rules are viewed. No player (nor Matt Mercer) should be allowed to dictate how the DM should be ruling things. The game is meant to be enjoyed by everyone, including the DM.

If someone is tyrant in that game, it's the players who insist on certain style of play when the DM doesn't agree with it. If you agree to play in someone's game, you are assumed to play by the rules of the DM of that table, not by someone else's rules.

Mutual agreement: correct: multiple people are in agreement. The DM isn't. But the tyrant is the DM for enforcing, or trying to force a type of play that multiple people don't want to play.

DM, can you explain why you aren't having fun playng DM? Is it because the players prefer Mercers rules choices over Crawfords, Mearls and Perkins? I prefer playing under Leonards, Greeners, Wilcoxes rules which build on the core ruleset.

I mean, you're the DM, but feel free rather than crying on the internet that people thinking Crawford's ability to write rules suck and they prefer to play the style of play they came into the hobby to, just sit down, tell them to shut the **** up, because you are there to have fun, and they are not and they are in the minority, because you are GOD and they are only like 3 people. Pssh. Bonus Action potions? What cancer is this? No, no. You taking a potion as a Bonus Action is ****i g ridiculous, because it stops me having fun by killing you before you kill me.

It's not as though it's even contra setting reasons: playing a Druid or Wizard in Rokugan say, or a game without blackpowder being able to run a Gunslinger, you could turn round and say these aren't possible withim the established setting we are playing, sorry.

I think the DM/OP just has a complex where he feels he is being compared to Matt Mercer, when in reality it's Crawford vs Mercer.

[Sigreid]

Mutual agreement: correct: multiple people are in agreement. The DM isn't. But the tyrant is the DM for enforcing, or trying to force a type of play that multiple people don't want to play.

DM, can you explain why you aren't having fun playng DM? Is it because the players prefer Mercers rules choices over Crawfords, Mearls and Perkins? I prefer playing under Leonards, Greeners, Wilcoxes rules which build on the core ruleset.

I mean, you're the DM, but feel free rather than crying on the internet that people thinking Crawford's ability to write rules suck and they prefer to play the style of play they came into the hobby to, just sit down, tell them to shut the **** up, because you are there to have fun, and they are not and they are in the minority, because you are GOD and they are only like 3 people. Pssh. Bonus Action potions? What cancer is this? No, no. You taking a potion as a Bonus Action is ****i g ridiculous, because it stops me having fun by killing you before you kill me.

It's not as though it's even contra setting reasons: playing a Druid or Wizard in Rokugan say, or a game without blackpowder being able to run a Gunslinger, you could turn round and say these aren't possible withim the established setting we are playing, sorry.

I think the DM/OP just has a complex where he feels he is being compared to Matt Mercer, when in reality it's Crawford vs Mercer.

We don't know much about the social dynamic here but I'll say that a DM is entirely within his or her rights to say "this is the kind of game I'm willing to DM. If that's not what you guys want, I'm not the right person to DM." That said, a DM should be willing to listen to the players and consider if some of their suggestions can be incorporated into the style of game they are willing to run.

[Arkhios]

Mutual agreement: correct: multiple people are in agreement. The DM isn't. But the tyrant is the DM for enforcing, or trying to force a type of play that multiple people don't want to play.

To be honest, that depends on who proposed the game: the players or the DM?

If it was the players, then sure, they might be more entitled to opinions regarding the play style.

However, if the DM asked whether these players wanted to participate in a story he had in mind, I strongly disagree that any player would have any right to mandate how his game should be run. Treat the campaign as a piece of art. An artist, let's say a painter, wouldn't let bystanders to mess with his/her painting, so why should the DM?

[Waterdeep Merch]

To be honest, that depends on who proposed the game: the players or the DM?

If it was the players, then sure, they might be more entitled to opinions regarding the play style.

However, if the DM asked whether these players wanted to participate in a story he had in mind, I strongly disagree that any player would have any right to mandate how his game should be run. Treat the campaign as a piece of art. An artist, let's say a painter, wouldn't let bystanders to mess with his/her painting, so why should the DM?

Or, really, if they really don't like it, they could do the responsible thing- quit the game, either find a new DM or run one themselves. As they haven't, it's likely the OP's game is at least somewhat fun. Or the players are lazy, one of the two.

I don't know where this whole 'the players should dictate the game' mindset came from. There's always been an easy way for players not to play with crap DM's, and that's not to play with them. I've done this for my entire gaming life, and have never played with a crap DM more than one session as a result. It's that easy.

A good DM listens to their player's desires and finds ways to incorporate what they can, definitely, but sometimes it either doesn't work out that well or the DM simply isn't good enough to do these things. That's hardly a crime. A bad player, meanwhile, gripes endlessly and tries to take the steering wheel. If you want to drive so bad, get your own car. If you want to DM so bad, DM a game.

It's less like a painter taking outside input and more like someone inviting people over for dinner, only to have the guests whine that they didn't order take out because they want what they saw on TV. The guests aren't obligated to eat the food, but the host isn't obligated to serve them whatever they want, either.

[Tanarii]

I've noticed that, because they're all voice actors there's a bit too much work being put into character voices. But that's personal taste.

EDIT: can we all try to keep it civil? I don't want to have to call the mods because this devolves into people hurling insults at each other. We could have some decent discussion about what the OP should do and try to work out why their player is asking to use Mercer's houserules.

Both of these are why I called myself out on using Bad DM/Player language.

I don't like "acting before play-ability" thing. But lots of people do. They think deep character acting with everything being stated in the 1st person in high verbose (or whatever you wan to call it) is the only way to "properly Roleplay".

Also, it makes for FAR more interesting entertainment/watching from the outside. If the ephisodes were edited, they definitely would be superior to watch compared to watching any game I'd personally consider superior to play in.

That's a problem I have with watching RPG games on twitch or youtube or whatever. What makes them fun to watch isn't (to me) the same thing that makes them fun to play. (This often goes for board or computer games too. Even some sports.)

[Vaz]

To be honest, that depends on who proposed the game: the players or the DM?

If it was the players, then sure, they might be more entitled to opinions regarding the play style.

However, if the DM asked whether these players wanted to participate in a story he had in mind, I strongly disagree that any player would have any right to mandate how his game should be run. Treat the campaign as a piece of art. An artist, let's say a painter, wouldn't let bystanders to mess with his/her painting, so why should the DM?

It isn't the DM's painting though. It is the groups. If it is a DM's painting then they don't need a party. They just desire validation, which can do one.

[jojo]

I'm a bad person and ex navy. The next time they tried to pull a Mercer does thing I'd be tempted to say something like "we're here to play our game not suck Matt Mercer's @#$%."

Same here, Active Army, play with a bunch of filthy legs. Anger often abounds, but back to the OPs issue.

Sit your players down and talk to them like rational adults... unless you're adolescents... in which case sit them down and talk like the adults you see on TV... sorry... bad example. Talk to them in a soothing voice... man this is harder than I thought it would be.

Try to have a rational, profanity free conversation focused on the issue without criticizing one another while offering possible solutions to the problem at hand. Make sure that they accommodate you equally, compromise means everyone's less than happy but still willing to work together.

If that fails kick them off your table and out of your house.

Seriously though. Rule 0 is "Have Fun" and it needs to apply to the DM as well as the players so let them know that it is not fun for you to be constantly challenged over differences in how the rules are interpreted. Explain to them that for every hour they sit around the table you have to spend two or three hours of your personal time preparing that experience and that you do not feel respected or appreciated as a result of their behavior which if continued will result in you refusing to continue spending your time and effort on enabling them to have fun playing the game. In order to correct this they need to quit detracting from your enjoyment by constantly arguing with you.

Alternately, especially if you're a new DM, it's usually best to simply run adventure modules for a while. An adventure module allows you to leverage tens of thousands of hours of experience from the hundreds of people who collaborated to create it which frees you up to learn and have fun.

Another pertinent piece of advice is that it's usually a bad idea for new DMs to go outside the PHB. Just because it exists doesn't mean it's in play, consider limiting the character options to the core PHB in the future and making use of the fact that multi-classing is an optional rule. The fewer variables you have to deal with the better experience you'll be able to facilitate for players at your table.

When I started DMing... (back in the day rant incoming) most of this stuff was fairly simple. I had a few convenient tables to worry about which clearly cross-referenced what Class X could do at Level Z in Situation Z according to Circumstances 1,2,3 etc. We didn't really have to worry too much about optional rules because, well it wasn't Christmas yet so we didn't have those books and once Christmas came around we still didn't because mom and dad thought DnD was Satanic mumbo-jumbo and they weren't gonna let us go any farther down that rabbit hole! Multi-classing was convenient because it just meant that we still had a Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, and two Fighters because there were only five people who wanted to play in the whole school and so all Jim's multi-class Elf Mage/Thief really meant was that when traps needed finding he was a Thief and when stuff needed poly-morphing he was a Mage, provided he remembered to take off that Studded Leather he bought so he didn't have to waste a spell-slot preparing mage-armor just so he didn't get killed because he missed the skeleton while he was finding the acid-dart trap...
The fact that Dave over there had a Dwarf Fighter/Cleric didn't bother me because who cared about that belt of Giant Strength anyway since I never have to worry about the terrifying synergy it had with the Axe of Dwarven Lords that his Cleric class prevented him from ever making use of...

Good times.

All that freed me up to become a better DM though because there was a much more limited set of variables that I had to account for at any given moment so I could concentrate on narrative, description, tone and other important things while being confident that I could always point to a clearly laid out table to overcome any arguments.

There's no reason you can't make the game more simple by cutting away the fat and just using the core rules with none of the optional cheese, no matter how crunchy or fluffy it may be.

[Throne12]

1. You allowed homebrew. Didn't know the rules. And then were pissed that the player, you perceive as a powergamer, followed his rules. You then took all his stuff next session because he dared correct you. -- this is all you being a little ****.

2. You are mad that your players want to use Matt Mercer's houserules. Why? Are they demanding houserules or just asking? -- this doesn't make sense. Questions don't need rage.

3. You said you wanted to craft a story not play a game. D&D is both. You are wrong for thinking otherwise.

Stop DMing. You have a toxic rage problem. Maybe your players are demanding too much critical role from you, but you really come off as an ass that is getting mad at people for playing a game.

1. The powergamer isn't playing the class
my problem with him is he stops the game to impose house rules. He use in his game that he took from Critical role. I didn't take any of my players stuff I let him play and ruled in his favor. I know my grammar is bad but you didn't read it correct.

2. Yes I was mad. I was mad because I have a player trying to force me to use house rule from another table. He also say sents your a new DM you should do this or that. He would also well tonight's session wasn't that good but your a new DM.

3. I know it's a game I don't have a story to tell. I'm a improvising type of DM. I ask were and what they want to do. Then shape a story about of there acting.

It isn't even me I have had 4 out of 6 of my players say something to me about this player. Also thank you for saying a have a toxic rage problem when you have not met me.

[War_lord]

As someone who actually likes the roleplaying Grognards hate (partially because anything Grognards hate is good)... I don't like Critical Role. The lack of editing makes it unwatchable as an entertainment product. The lack of adherence to the rules makes it unwatchable as a D&D game. The humor can be divided into three categories, "look at the funny voice I'm doing", "lol random" and "in-jokes" . None of which appeal to me.

If I want a story about a D&D campaign, I have Demonac's "Tales from my D&D campaign", if I want a funny D&D podcast I have Acquisitions Incorporated. I can't understand the appeal of Critical Role, but it obviously exists.

[GlenSmash!]

Yeah, not really justified. Because it's judging other play styles and calling someone a Bad DM or Bad Player isn't cool. So instead of saying it makes them bad, here's what I don't like:

He's definitely a Boring DM, and many of his players are Boring Players. Although that's a personal judgment, I know it's not just me. He bores his own players. His players bore the other players. Regularly. He has no decent sense of pacing, and you can regularly see his players getting twitchy.

The other thing I don't personally like is I don't think he or the players are very good at establishing necessary information needed for proper resolution, or the results of it. They're too busy acting to properly communicate what they're attempting to do, or describing results flowerly to give the important details of what has happened. Or setting the scene instead of telling players what they need to know.

It's passable entertainment to watch externally, if you don't mind super slow. It'd be horrible to play in.

Thank you for replying. I think these are fair criticisms.

I think it's the nature of the fact that they are actors making an unscripted show, that whoever talks the longest or loudest gets the most spotlight.

Making sure spotlight is even among your players can go a long way to making a game better. In fact, it can make up for all sorts of problems.

Likewise I think you are right that the players do a poor job of stating their goal and approach to scenarios. This might again be a victim of "acting".

[Anonymouswizard]

Both of these are why I called myself out on using Bad DM/Player language.

Sorry, that wasn't aimed at you but at the person who posted just before me.

I don't like "acting before play-ability" thing. But lots of people do. They think deep character acting with everything being stated in the 1st person in high verbose (or whatever you wan to call it) is the only way to "properly Roleplay".

Yes. It annoys me, the best set of roleplayers I played with (campaigns enjoyed: 4 out of 4) never put on voices, although we also were comfortable in our associated roles. We had the unofficial team leader, the shifty guy (me, in the 'causes trouble' sense), the crazy girl (as in, characters tended to not quite be there), the 'do stuff' guy, and the guy who played teenagers. We did change after a while, two of my five characters just weren't shifty, but were questionably sane, and the crazy girl had a dwarven engineer who was just driven. We never put on voices, you would work out if we were speaking in character if we responded to somebody or was or say 'I say' or 'I reply'.

Also, it makes for FAR more interesting entertainment/watching from the outside. If the ephisodes were edited, they definitely would be superior to watch compared to watching any game I'd personally consider superior to play in.

Oh, certainly, and what they need for views is interesting.

I have the problem in that the first 'RPG show' I watched was Titanfall, which had the benefits of a specifically designed set, scripting (as in the adventure was designed for the format), and editing. It has much less in the way of awkward pauses

That's a problem I have with watching RPG games on twitch or youtube or whatever. What makes them fun to watch isn't (to me) the same thing that makes them fun to play. (This often goes for board or computer games too. Even some sports.)

Completely and utterly. Heck, I'd never run a science fantasy game after the first time I tried, but they're interesting to watch.

[KorvinStarmast]

As someone who actually likes the roleplaying Grognards hate (partially because anything Grognards hate is good)...

Grognards like role playing. I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.

I don't like Critical Role. The lack of editing makes it unwatchable as an entertainment product. The lack of adherence to the rules makes it unwatchable as a D&D game. The humor can be divided into three categories, "look at the funny voice I'm doing", "lol random" and "in-jokes" . None of which appeal to me.

Ditto.

I can't understand the appeal of Critical Role, but it obviously exists.

It's been well advertised?

[Dudewithknives]

Grognards like role playing. I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.

Ditto.
It's been well advertised?

Critical role is popular because they try to draw in fans of other nerd hobbies like video games, sci fi and others.

MM just wants to tell a story that makes sense to him and the rules just happen be in 5e, now.

He is a huge fan of rule 0, he will do whatever to make the story look right to him, and the rules are just there on the side.

That is not some people's style.

I only use rule 0 for if something was designed badly, or the rule makes no sense the way it is worded.

I especially hate they way he does homebrew items and subclasses. He has no concept of balance at all.
He let's rule of cool, and rule of getting more views throw gaming balance out the window.

[suplee215]

Critical role is popular because they try to draw in fans of other nerd hobbies like video games, sci fi and others.



I especially hate they way he does homebrew items and subclasses. He has no concept of balance at all.
He let's rule of cool, and rule of getting more views throw gaming balance out the window.

Just out of curiosity how are his homebrew subclasses not balance? I played a gunslinger before and it did not feel extremely powerful. You trade one of your attacks every couple of rounds for a higher damage dice and a chance to destroy the weapon. And you need to expend a lot of resources to obtain them. Unsure of the blood hunter and others as I didn't play them but the gunslinger seems to be the biggest one connected to him.

[Tanarii]

MM just wants to tell a story that makes sense to him and the rules just happen be in 5e, now.

He is a huge fan of rule 0, he will do whatever to make the story look right to him, and the rules are just there on the side.

That is not some people's style.

Whats funny is I strongly suspect it's very similar to what it was like playing with Gygax. And clearly people had fun there.