The Problem With Talking About D&D

Why is it so hard to have a conversation about what's good and bad about D&D?
📧 Sign up to get notified when the Monster Book Kickstarter goes live | mcdm.gg/Monste...
👀 Check out the latest update about Kingdoms & Warfare's production | mcdm.gg/K&W-De...
💝 Support us on Patreon to get ARCADIA and other rewards! | mcdm.gg/patreon
📚 Enhance your game with 5e products from our Shop | mcdm.gg/shop
🐦 Follow us on Twitter!
MCDM - / hellomcdm
Matt - / mattcolville
💬 Join the MCDM community on our official Discord | mcdm.gg/discord
#RunningTheGame #MattColville #MCDM

[@fuse625151]

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

[@MrInternetHermit]

For him it was a cool suggestion, for us it was the perfect answer. Insert "I'm not the Messiah!" Meme.

[@benjaminholcomb9478]

Fuse, I came down here to comment this exact thing. Two great minds think alike.

[@DaFranker]

It's a cool starting point, but definitely not a complete solution. Matt alludes to it, but these ways of breaking things down (tactical vs drama, playercount) are two factors that he has noticed, in his own experience, tend to generate disagreements on the kinds of discussions he pays attention to. Does his experience automatically mean that these are the most useful ways to categorize players and that splitting adventures this way will instantly fix the problem and each adventure built for a deep-red heavy-wargamer 6-player table group will work for *every* deep-red heavy-wargamer 6-player table? Probably not. That's why he's saying he doesn't "have a solution" -- it's a starting point for how to look at things, not something that will resolve the problem of assuming your table is the same as another table and therefore only the rules/system must be what needs to be discussed. Two deep-red tables would still get in an argument here, most likely. What would be super helpful is doing a comprehensive study of playstyles and table/group variables, and then correlating those with how much a given group enjoys or matches a given adventure or encounter, how easy/hard they find it, etc. That would let us (with a bit of science) determine which specific aspects of a table have the biggest impact and then categorize groups in a way that matches this. Maybe one axis is the level of tactical mastery of the best player at the table -- or maybe it's the floor of the weakest tactical player at the table that's more important? Does it make a big difference if you have a wide range of roleplaying comfort zone, with one casanova so impressive at getting in character and voice acting they make you want to always let them succeed in social situations without rolling even if their character *should* be a low-CHA brute that shouldn't be that good in social scenes, and then another player in the group can't even bring themselves to speak in character and always just narrates that their PC says something about X? Does that variance matter, or only the average comfort level? Does voice acting matter to how players perceive social encounter difficulty? So many unanswered questions we need to figure out before we can get to nailing down a proper categorization system that will be *useful* for improving the ROI on adventures, encounter design and overall content for RPG tables.

[@commandercaptain4664]

Even if the scale solution was implemented, it would be difficult to incorporate every game element as a codified scale type when crafting homebrew adventures kowtowing to the ever elusive fallacy of game balance, and regarding published adventures doing the same, you'd still have whiners online going on about "weh X adventure EXISTS AT ALL and is therefore an affront to my widdle thenthitivity, they don't make enough of Y adventure, nobody buys X adventures noh moh, get X go broke weh". Ultimately, the problem with talking about D&D = other people. The solution may already exist: getting to know your group via Session Zero + Post Sessions. Groups supersede games in the RPG sphere. It ain't perfect, but at least it engenders a mutual understanding and seamless adaptation to any perceived flaws in a session (lest I allude to yet another shopworn example of Crit Role... post-Acaba, of course). The fact that D&D Beyond lacks a gamers' Tinder ("Gamr" perhaps?) for matching compatible players to groups is a massive oversight.

[@MrInternetHermit]

@@commandercaptain4664 Obviously there will never be a perfect solution, but the whole point is that it's something that can work if done right & better than the nothing we have now.

[@00AfterBurner]

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.

[@Sound_Tech]

Oh man. In my game last Sunday I had one of those "sorry, we're going to have to roll back the clock on this game because I did not understand that encounter's difficulty." I had heard Rot Grubs are more dangerous than they 'ought to be' but I was running an adventure out of the book and trusted, wrongly, that two 3rd lvl characters could pull the weight of an estimated 4-6 lvl 1 characters. We'll be making some changes next Sunday.

[@theravenousrabbit3671]

There is zero way of balancing combat in advance. You never know if the dragon keeps rolling 5's and 6's on is breath, or only 1's. You never know if the players are going to be playing otpimally or suboptimally this encounter, etc etc. You CAN'T balance, which is why I design most of my encounters to be adaptive and rely on morale checks. This way, the players can intentionally influence the combat by killing leaders, etc.

[@digitaljanus]

@@Sound_Tech One of those classic monsters that is pathetically weak "by the numbers" but has some extremely lethal or debilitating ability that wrecks parties. I've been there, and I empathize.

[@kryptonianguest1903]

Meh. I'd rather just run Pathfinder 2nd edition, where the encounter building math actually works so I don't have to do any of that.

[@markfelps2269]

Been doing it for 42 years and I still adjust right up until the last minute.

[@ddm4life915]

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

[@rcschmidt668]

Same! I was waiting for the Bruno reference. LOL

[@animorte9790]

Oddly enough it still kind of feels like a joke because of how few people are likely to take this seriuously.

[@mcolville]

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.

[@ddm4life915]

L5R sounds like a once in a lifetime phenomenon for nerds. Those of us that were too young to be there eagerly anticipate the next big thing, and hope you’re the one to make it happen Matt. No pressure though, just keep doing what you’re doing!

[@watersage7395]

Reading this makes me miss playing the CCG

[@falsenames]

@@watersage7395 Reading this makes me sad that I only found out about the CCG in 2013, after having played the TTRPG for years. Wish I had gotten in early.

[@steegen101]

That's so cool.

[@Jayce_Alexander]

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!

[@jhs59]

Yes! I really need to learn this skill. It's not so much that I want to say, "this is how it should be done." It's more like, "this is how I do it." So that's the language I need to start using at all times. When a player doesn't like the way I do something, they may say so, but it doesn't mean I will change the way I do it, and if I don't, that should be the end of it. I say that because I believe the same if the roles were reversed and I was the player. I need to play this DM's game, not debate them every time our opinions don't match. I've been that player, and I've been the DM dealing with that player. It's a mutual respect sort of thing.

[@visnoga5054]

Big damn yes.

[@TheRockinDonkey]

I agree. when I first started looking at DMing 5e, I watched a lot of content with, I don't want to call it bad advice, but it was advice that wasn't good for my table. I don't think those creators take into account that this game is more of an art than a science. it's a lot like playing a musical instrument. some techniques are just out of place depending on the style of music being performed. there are some great content creators out there, so I keep looking, but there are some that aren't as good as they would be if they took the time to understand that.

[@loweffortproductions1985]

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.

[@oz_jones]

"Thats a good point. However consider my counter-argument.... [roll initiative]."

[@falsenames]

This reminds me of one of the few 4e games I played. Our party stumbled into a cavern full of goblins, half a dozen of which were in the middle of fighting over a tin "crown" to see who would be the next king. Our rogue turned to me, the wizard, and asked "Can you make that thing glow on command?", and after I said yes stepped forward to the goblins rushing at us and said we were sent by their gods to show them their new king by placing the crown on their heads. After one natural 0 on a persuasion check, and being surrounded and held at spear point, my character placed the crown on three goblins' heads without doing anything. On the fourth, I cast Continual Light on it. And that's how we had to sort out attempting to sort out how we could travel from town to town with 50 or so goblins in tow. They had decided to follow their prophets and ended up being a hilarious headache for the party and the DM for several months. When it got way too inconvenient to have them follow us around due to having to enter a city to embark on sea travel, we found them a spot away from settlements and declared it their holy land and walked off "to identify the next great goblin leader" elsewhere.

[@RuSosan]

Considering the average Kobold life experience, the party was most likely just correct there, lol.

[@QuinnTheGM]

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!

[@WhatsUpGazpacho]

Hey I follow you on twitter :)

[@QuinnTheGM]

@@WhatsUpGazpacho :D

[@78Mathius]

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.

[@ingridplata2411]

Iirc Paizo does/used to do that with their Pathfinder adventures. I remember a Pathfinder 1E adventure where they would advise you on how to tweak encounters for bigger/smaller groups. At some point the party had to argue a case in court and the thing had a scoring system to evaluate how well they did based on the evidence they provided and it did say that you could have them roll a few checks or have them go through the whole trial. It was pretty neat

[@katjordan3733]

"I run two tables and the same adventure is very different at the table." This is very true. I started with a table of experienced players and one of newbies, and have watched them play identical modules in totally different ways.

[@felixgauthier-mamaril675]

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

[@mcolville]

I *also* have been reading Elusive Shift!

[@TheKorath]

I've just finished both the Elusive Shift and The Game Wizards. If anything they've impressed upon me the need to better archive and preserve TTRPG history. Stuff like En Garde! and Lord of the Dice seemed to really mess with the foundations of a TTRPG but I'd never heard of either of them. I've come away with the take that maybe there is no such thing as a bad game, just different games.

[@TheKorath]

@O. M. I've only ever played one game of Paranoia and I was in tears laughing most of the time.

[@MAKRA567]

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.

[@carterswafford2222]

r/PoliticalCompassMemes does this except with political viewpoints. Maybe someone can make a TTRPG compass?

[@KalonOrdona2]

@@carterswafford2222 dew it! :D

[@nicholascarter9158]

@@carterswafford2222 You mean an alignment chart?

[@Luke-mf6tg]

You could just ask the other person what their experience is...

[@upsidely]

You'd just end up with the elitist toxoids using it to belittle less experienced or more casual players and DMs

[@liamflynn1120]

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:

[@brianb.6356]

The most likely answer IMO is how often your players short rest. 5e has long rest classes (clerics, wizards to some extent), short rest classes (monks, warlocks, barbarians sort of) and classes that don't really need to rest for resources at all (some fighters, rogues). Monks are by far the most heavily short rest dependent class since it refuels their ki and all their abilities depend on ki. So what people think of the monk's power level is IMO often a shorthand for how often their group takes short rests. The other possible answers are: * How well your monk player can take advantage of high speed: it takes some creativity, not everyone uses it effectively, and a monk that just runs up and stands there is gonna be defensively weak * How often you're fighting monsters with a high CON save: a monk's best ability is Stunning Strike which targets CON; if you often fight dangerous monsters with low CON and no legendary resistance like liches, the monk will often be able to totally take them out of combat for several rounds, which feels amazing. * How many people you're playing with: a monk is best as a sort of martial battlefield control. If you have a lot of players, this is a great addition. If you don't have enough players for a tank, a DPS, and a utility caster at least, it will be very obvious that the monk is not doing that thing you desperately need. * General system awareness: a monk is best as a sort of martial battlefield control. A savvy player will read their stats and do that, and be very effective. But a lot of players will instead just walk up and try to punch, and that's very much not what the monk wants to do (and this is unlike any other martial class, who can all at least tolerably do this).

[@falsenames]

I do like D&D optimisation. I do like just having fun. I have to say that even though monks are pretty awful on the optimisation scale, the only time out of the three monks I've played were I didn't have fun was for several levels of the four elements monk. My DM let me switch out to another subclass, which I appreciated. The sheer glee of the occasional stunlock of a BEG is just too good to pass up. Same campaign where I swapped out of four elements into a basic open hand monk, I managed to kill the first few rounds of a lich by running up a wall out of the reach of a group of zombies blocking the entrance to it's sanctum, stunning the lich twice while the rest of the party slaughtered zombies, and ducked out of line of sight before the third round when the lich could finally attack something and had more pressing concerns like a paladin that disagreed with the existence of liches. A potentially very lethal fight became a joke by using skirmishing mobility to take out a well positioned spell caster early. Several things to think of for playing monks, even if their DPS is pretty awful: * Do you have a rogue or any other character that can benefit on flanking bonuses? Monks can get pretty much anywhere on a battle map with a bit of creativity. * Is your GM not super deep into very crunchy combats? (optimisers tend to be extremely crunchy when they are a DM and like going "against" a crunchy DM, skews the results vs.going against a drama driven DM) * Do you end up with battle maps with spread out NPCs? * Does your DM like having a single caster to deal high DPS while they are sitting in the back of the line of scrimmage? * No other way of phrasing this, but how does your DM react to the phrase "I'm going to do some monk stuff"? If your DM is following the Rule of Cool, monks can get away with some crazy actions. Any example of Jackie Chan doing a thing in a movie will help with this.

[@ashleyhoughton8592]

Agreed with something someone else replied. Table size makes a much bigger difference than you would imagine for the monk. A smaller table is bad for a monk, a bigger table is much better by considerable margin.

[@ElrohirGuitar]

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.

[@wobbyism]

Well put. I recently ran a solo adventure for my friend whose character had a month of downtime to pursue their own goals. The players and admittedly myself joking referred to my friend's character as chaotic evil due to their past (very bloody) actions in the main campaign. As a result of this, I designed a handful of heavy-on-combat encounters because that's what I believed the player enjoyed. So what does this player's character do during these encounters? They manage to talk their way out of 90% of the encounters - including talking down their spiritual alter egos in a test to their god. It was truly fascinating.

[@darkdragonsoul99]

@@wobbyism In the last campaign my party had a favorite tactic the gnome bomb the goliath fighter would grab the gnome wizard throw him in the middle of a group of enemies the wizard then would drop a bomb and then thunder step away . I never thought throw them gnome would be taken so literal then again what do you expect from 10 year olds.

[@thegiantmimir4664]

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.

[@quesoblanco444]

Do you mean side convo between players? In online play asides from a GM to a lone player would be easier, not more difficult.

[@oz_jones]

Also, its very hard to read people just through voice.

[@Humble197]

@@oz_jones I think this depends on past experiences. Growing up I played xbox live all the time where I had to be able to read someone based purely on their voice. So playing DND like that is natural to me.

[@disnagburnazog9552]

Online adds a lot of smoke n mirrors you would never be capable of IRL too

[@Magic__7]

@@quesoblanco444 yes but player to player while someone else is doing something sneaking into a castle door for example at a table can be whispered to each other is far harder

[@Pyre001]

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.

[@jbartnik1918]

I've had this experience too. Asked a very pointed question, 7/10 responses were totally irrelevant, 2 were openly hostile, only 1 useful & polite reply.

[@TheSmart-CasualGamer]

@@jbartnik1918 That's far better than the average internet experience!

[@thomase640]

Same experience. I asked for interesting uses of an ability. All answers where hyper specific nonsense to show how dumb the skill is, 3 exhagerations why the skill is op and 2 balancing tips in both directions. No one even remotely answered the question.

[@yungmythologist]

this is a white-hot targeted attack at people on reddit and /tg/. i love this video. this video is awesome. an incredible gift of how to articulate the main refutation of people who have a strange understanding of the game on paper vs the game in practice. I've never been able to put what you've described into words but this particular 10 minutes might have saved me a lot of work. Thanks!

[@oldmanfunky4909]

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.

[@theenoogie]

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

[@composedreamgames1919]

I was thinking about the problem of general experience. It gets complicated if you play/run a lot of systems. AD&D Play, D&D 3e Play/GM, nWoD Play/GM, OSRIC/AD&D GM -- early experiences Homebrewer Designer Simple Superheroes, Designer Dungeons Unleashed Frequent convention player/GM, event organizer Occasional played/GM'ed influences: Hackmaster 5e, Universalis, Fate, Amber Diceless, Free Spacer, The Quiet Year, Serenity, Spark, Champions of Zed RPG'ing since 1999 I'm sure there's more to pack in there, but these are some of the relevant things.

[@delax000]

@@composedreamgames1919 well, part of it is having a more specific topic or less specific "code" catagories, otherwise you need a biography lol For example, did the L5R code include MtG level of experience? Sounds helpful but tangential and less compact.

[@hawkthetraveler6344]

@Matt Colville I encourage MCDM to start using some level of "intended audience" diagram for your adventures to see if it catches on. I would definitely appreciate that on DMs Guild, currently its hard to even search for the modules that have lots of good ratings as their "hot now" appears to be just like the last week or something.

[@Incurafy]

+1 to this. MCDM are perfectly situated to design this themselves and start using it in their own products, especially Arcadia, and invite others to use it too by making it open and free (however that works).

[@Killerrez]

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.

[@cephelos1098]

What's your sneak attack houserule? You can't leave us hangin like that!

[@Killerrez]

@@cephelos1098 It's a simple change. Sneak attack or any precision damage can only be used with your main hand weapon. (If you only attack with an off-hand weapon that's fine too) I'm sure I'm going to hear about how now there's "zero reason" for anyone to make a Two-Weapon fighting Rogue, but 🤷.

[@nottarealguy3954]

I'm the same way, I've been playing with mostly the same people running a houserule-riddled SRD version of 3.5 for almost 10 years. I know 5e is probably better but I'm just too far gone.

[@BakerPeter]

Really hope MCDM takes this route if they release adventures.

[@youareivan]

i was directed to your channel by a streamer who linked one of your videos when their chat started talking about lawful vs chaos and really enjoyed your views so i've been watching a few of your videos even though it's been decades since i played d&d. one of the things that i really liked about it back in the 70's was how vastly different dm's ran their games. it was sometimes nearly a completely different game depending on who was running it, but it was always fun and exciting! one thing i've noticed is that because d&d is so popular now there are so many resources to go to when you have questions about handling different situations. in an odd way having so many resources actually limits your options instead of opening them up. i would advise any dm to trust yourself and your players- just because you can find resources saying do this or do that it doesn't mean you can't come up with your own unique solutions. the game you're playing is still d&d even if it's different than what someone else might do.

[@Calebgoblin]

As it turns out, empirical facts about being a good DM and running a good game are not very quantifiable or easy to explain. Simple, concrete mathematical things like "balance" are subjectively good, not objectively good. I think that's what makes this channel great, is that it tackles the true issues of good D&D by giving them the effort in complexity that they require.

[@felixgauthier-mamaril675]

There's a great Monte Cook blog post in Kobold's guide to Game design, about the realities of desiging a ''balanced'' rpg. He defines Balance in two ways, one of which can be meaningfully affected by the designer and the other by the group.

[@DeGreyChristensen]

I don’t personally believe “balance” really exists in games like DnD. It’s an illusion that makes the number crunching players feel secure. If there was true balance, the players would lose half the time. In reality, the DM is just in charge of throwing “interesting” encounters at the party. If it is interesting enough, it will provide challenge to all those involved and as long as the number crunching players don’t die and feel at least a little bit challenged, they will put their “balanced” stamp of approval on the encounter and the DM is worthy to live another day. In reality, the DM is behind the screen tweaking things before and sometimes during the encounter, monkeying around with NPC motivations, and trying to come up with fun and unique twists and situations and features that can arise to make the encounter more “interesting”. Also, the mere fact that it is often 2-6 v 1 with the DM vastly outnumbered by players means that as far as brain power goes, it can never be truly balanced either.

[@mayhemivory5730]

@@DeGreyChristensen balance doesn’t just have a single context it can be used in. fitting contexts for „encounter balance“ would be: balance between being hard enough to be engaging, and not so hard it kills you. balance between being too short and taking too long. balance between perceived threat and actual threat. balance between agency and random chance. no one means „50/50 chance the players die“ when they talk about balance. thats a strawman, thats why its such a weak argument and so easy to pick apart. a „balanced encounter“ isnt just simply one that the players had fun with. its an encounter that they had fun with, „because it was balanced for the scales that are relevant for players to have fun“. you‘re mixing up cause and effect. if the fight is too easy and ends round 1, thats boring. if its too hard, and they all die, thats annoying. balance, here, is when the monsters seem unbeatable in round 1, are somewhat on equal footing to the players in round 2, fall on the back-foot in round 3, and are finally defeated in round 4. the exact numbers may vary by group of course, but the encounter still needs to be balanced to the strength of the group, in such a way that this „intended outcome“ is reached. ironically, this balance needs to be balanced against another type of balance. the DM needs to create a balance between the perceived agency of the players, and the predetermination of the aforementioned intended outcome. in other words, it cant be too swingy, were a single roll can decide if everyone lives or dies. but it also cant be such that the players (or worse, the DM) simply decide who wins. that is the entire point of using dice: to insert random chance. because chance is impartial. balance, here, is the DM designing the encounter in such a way, that random chance, while clearly present, can not actually divert the outcome from what the DM has planned. so in essence, encounters should be challenging, and require the players to expend their fictional resources; but also easy, so they win in the end. their course should also be determined by the players decisions, but ultimately decided by the dice. these four things need to all be present, but not be superseding one another. they need to „be balanced“.

[@DeGreyChristensen]

@@mayhemivory5730 you say it is bad to have the DM decide who wins, but your definition of a balanced encounter is one where the players always win by round 4-5 (give or take a round). How is that in any way consistent? In my experience, because I used to try to design every single encounter like this, calculating everything as best I could, players will eventually figure out that you are planning on their success. Eventually, they see that they are beating every encounter after a number of rounds when it seemed so daunting at first. This type of “balance” is hollow and scripted and gives credit to the term you used “perceived agency” meaning they never really have a choice. Or “perceived threat” meaning there really isn’t a threat. It just looks like there is. I design my encounters now without even considering my players (to an extent). I choose threat level based on what makes sense for the bad guys, the situation, and the story. I add as much interesting interactive features to the encounter as I can and I play the bad guys like they want to win. If the players are smart and roll well then they will win. If not, my players have learned that it is best to retreat and go back at it from a different angle. I do not bother myself with perceived balance, because this is just an illusion that eventually leads to disappointment when the players find out that it was designed to be beaten or that there is no real threat. I make my players feel like there is a very good chance their characters could die because there is a very good chance their characters could die in combat. Especially if they don’t think it through first. Since I have started doing this, encounter design has gotten a lot easier and less time consuming and my players have thoroughly enjoyed every combat encounter. The game as a whole feels more real and less like a hollow illusion for me and my players. There is real excitement on both sides of the screen when an enemy or monster is defeated because I truthfully didn’t know beforehand if they were going to pull it off. Before you accuse me of trying to kill off my player characters to prove how deadly my game is, I don’t. I give them ample warning about how deadly an encounter is through context clues and there is almost always a way out if they feel like they are getting overwhelmed. I have only ever had a few player characters actually die and even when that happened they enjoyed it and knew I wasn’t going overly hard on them. It was usually because of a bad die roll or a poor decision on their part. They recognized immediately what they did wrong in the movement relenting “oh, I should have cast a different spell, or used cover instead of just standing out in the open.” I don’t design impossible encounters, but I don’t consider any specific way of beating it. Every monster is technically killable, but sometimes it takes creativity to do it without loss of life. Once combat begins, I am very open to player creativity. If a player suggests a possible solution and it sounds even somewhat reasonable, I’ll let them roll for it. I want them to win, but I am not going to coddle them from behind a wall of “perceived threat”. I find that boring as a DM and in games where I did that, my players got bored from the lack of true threat. DMs obsessed with this kind of “balance” get so stressed out about finding that sweet spot, of hard enough to survive the first round or two, but easy enough to kill after round 4 or 5, that encounter design becomes an ever changing math problem. Screw that. I want an encounter that feels real. I want it deadly. And if my players find a way to kill the big monster or end the encounter in one round, I want to cheer with them because it obviously took a lot of creative planning to pull it off. Focusing on “interesting” and “realistic” encounters and forgetting about perceived balance takes loads of stress off the DM and makes for much more memorable encounters. And when the players do come out on top because of superior creativity, tactics, and a little bit of luck (cause a smart player leaves as little to chance as possible), they feel that much better about themselves. And as an added bonus, the numbers obsessed players will still think you put in the numbers work to make a “balanced” encounter. If you enjoy spinning your “balance” plates and creating the illusion of threat and agency for your players, then do what makes you happy. But I still feel like balance is an illusion. And if it is overwhelming balance in favor of the players winning every time, then I ask if it is really “balance” or just easy mascarading as scary or dangerous looking.

[@andrewmcmillan229]

I do feel like balance between the classes is of some importance just to make sure everyone is having a good time during combat and feeling like their character is contributing. Balance between monsters and classes doesn’t matter because that’s all up to the DM.

[@jeremiahalonzo]

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!

[@Dogbury]

I’ve noticed a trend in my viewing of online content regarding D&D of which Matt Colville seems to be a proponent. The table is the fundamental unit of the game, and at that level this is our game, and our rules - or rather these are our games, and our stories. Good work!

[@utkarshgaur1942]

I've been running some Adventure League modules recently and some of them I find are quite helpful in breaking down encounters by pillar (social/exploration/combat) and player power. So, each encounter has a breakdown by approach - if the players want to do more social RP, here are some hooks. If they want to sneak around, here's what happens. If they jump into combat, here are the enemy tactics. And also, there are explicit changes to combat mentioned when you have more or fewer than 5 players, and if their average level is higher or lower than the intended design. "Add another Yeth Hound." Or "Lower the boss's HP to 158." It's a good template.

[@SuouEtsumi]

Ooh that sounds like the kind of breakdown I need as a new DM ! (and is sadly missing from things like the essentials kit). Any modules in particular that you'd recommend for newer players? :)

[@iwaslikeweeeee]

It is so amazing to see the quality of these videos from when Matt was making them in his home office. The content has always been top-notch, but it is lovely to see that the production has come a long way.

[@buraeen5735]

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.

[@natashalevesque6589]

This is definitely a thing! I don't really think it ever happens less often, I think it's a lot what we bring to the table in terms of where our baseline moods are that day and what the energy level is. I think you will get better, but I think when it comes to stuff like this, just like with what Matt is say, the key may be communication. Something I do with my table that might work with yours, is I'll often ask my players before the game what their vibe is, especially if people have had a hard week or seem kinda tired - that way I know I need to hold off on a big tactical encounter, or give them a shopping episode, or toss some monsters at them so they can get out some pent-up rage. It does mean you have to be a little looser with game prep but its worked out well when I've done it! I hope it helps!

[@foxbat1766]

Love the 'Power Windows" Shirt! Excellent thoughts on color coding modules to fit group styles and dynamics...

[@MrBoltstrike]

I've been noticing this topic a lot lately, and as always, Matt has this weird way of dropping videos about a week after I encounter the topic. I wonder if sharing this video with people will help them see that not only can our opinions be different but so can our experiences and situations.

[@Malekii999]

That's because Matt has been following you around, hiding behind bushes, peeking around corners, to come up with new video ideas

[@crisrody852]

I'd like to add that despite the fact that each group has a different style of play, most optimizing communities have this also taken in consideration. Usually if you post on a optimizing reddit/discord group about a character, they will first ask you a bit of it's story and your goal, because optimizing isn't about only doing more DPR, but having more fun with the character you choose to play. Also, as a DM, I can't trust DPR calculations from other DMs, but I do know what will happen in my own game, I can calculate my player's DPR based on how I want my games to be played and then build my encounters around it. I still play dungeon-crawls with my friends up to this day, and there is a kind of "trust" that can't be broken between me and my players, I'll build the encounters, I'll create the enemies and have their personalities and tactics of combat decided before the game. After initiative is rolled, I'll not change their stats or skills, I'll not give more HP or change anything so the combat can follow in a way that I've planned. My plans may fail, the encounter might be to easy or to hard, and the group has fun with it. They will accept character death if it happens, and we will keep gaming having fun. Now, does this work for any group I DM? Of course not, I dm for hiring for a lot of groups, usually with official modules, for those, I can just handwave combat and change things on the fly and focus on the roleplay, with it what most players are fond of nowadays.

[@lancebaker9153]

Such a great take on this. I play at three tables and they are all vastly different! Plus, I love the central thesis that just because we're looking at the same book doesn't mean we're playing the same game. I wonder how many arguments in all spaces start because folks imagine they are working with a shared set of definitions, when they actually aren't at all...🤔

[@apocryphgaming9995]

You asked - perhaps rhetorically - "Can you 'speedrun' D&D?" Yes and it's a fun campaign style in itself: Running official 5e module books for a party of 20th-level characters. A good way to make "Lost Mine of Phandelver" into a one-shot. I've been doing this for a little while now, having done it with Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Storm King's Thunder. I'm going to run Curse of Strahd like this next. What I found with this though wasn't what I expected: I expected my players to treat this like a 'speedrun'. An environment for them to stretch their legs; make their 'dream builds' and cut loose with all that is mechanically possible in D&D 5e. But what I found was that these players had no interest in "Speedrunning" the module books at all. They played the modules as intended, just with little to no difficulty in the encounters. Nothing in the books themselves were changed: The skill check DCs were the same; the combat encounter tables were the same. So when you turn down the mechanical difficulty, what happens? The players reach for the roleplay. Players take their time; the game becomes more story-driven; they'll explore possibilities and opportunities that would otherwise be deemed 'too risky' or 'too distracting from the task at hand'. In short: We as a group ended up enjoying these modules much more at 20th level than we've enjoyed them as-intended.

[@apocryphgaming9995]

@@MulryTime Incidentally, the whole "putting a refreshing spin on the module" is exactly why I'm stoked to run Curse of Strahd at this level next. In the module, Strahd is the proverbial "Puppet Master". As a Darklord ruling over a Plane of Dread, he rules from an absolute position of power. None can challenge his authority, and his constant underestimation of the PCs is largely the hubris that ultimately becomes his undoing. But in a 20th-level playthrough, that all changes. Strahd knows pretty much *immediately* that any one of them alone has the strength to best him, much less together. He will view his own role as being Barovia's defender; protecting his Domain from these intruders, and will marshal everything in his repertoire to thwart them. I'm still writing my GM notes before I run this, but the thought of it alone is... rather delicious.

[@apocryphgaming9995]

@@MulryTime I realised my first comment got deleted for some reason! To answer your question properly: My players are a mixed bag. Some of them have decades of TTRPG experience, and some of them have only ever known 5e. The veterans appreciated the rare opportunity to play at 20th level nontheless and the newer players were doing so for the first time. That said, they were familiar with "optimised builds" found online that can go all the way to 20th level, and wanted to try those out. SKT was the first one we did, and that only took four sessions, each about 3-4 hours long. So much of that module lies in travel; in information-finding and in grueling combat encounters - all of which the party had efficient solutions for. In one encounter a Wizard took out six Frost Giants in a single round of combat, for example. And as for travel, well: That's what True Polymorph (into an Adult Gold Dragon) is for. HotDQ took much longer and was my favourite module. That first chapter as-written, your objective is simply to survive the night. The raiders are far too powerful and too numerous for low-level PCs to deal with. However, as 20th-level adventurers, that all changes - now you have every agency to be the heroes of the night; to thwart the raid and turn the night into not only a successful defense of the town, but use the opportunity to learn as much as you can about the raiders. After all, the townsfolk have no idea why they were attacked, or even who by. Just the fact they were 20th level really turned the module on its head, and so it ended up playing out like a true module campaign, but one that's almost like a "What if?" scenario. It was great.

[@apocryphgaming9995]

@@MulryTime Ditto for magic items, too. I allowed my players to have *one* Magic Item from any official material, with the proviso that if they choose something that grants 'Wish', I'm running that completely RAW, and to be mindful of the 'fun' of other players at the table. Fortunately, nobody took stuff like that. But yeah, between things like the Belt of Storm Giant Strength and the Tome of the Stilled Tongue, there's so much cool stuff in the game that few people get to engage with. Downsides? It does rob the players of 'PC Growth' and the idea of character development from a mechanical perspective, but what you get in return is mechanical freedom. Build that character you always wanted to try and make. Or just make something silly and broken, like a Samurai who can make 16 attacks per turn. It's a breath of fresh air in that respect.

[@Balin93]

RUSH - POWER WINDOWS was the first concert I ever saw, back in 1986. fwiw

[@Jorph]

Reminds of the old WOTC message boards, back in the 3e days. There was so much arguing about class balance until someone invented The Same Game test which was just a math gauntlet of Level Appropriate Encounters and making the classes run solo through them and see how well they survive and why, and how many caveats were in each encounter. The most illuminating thing was really just how many different ways spell casters could approach encounters vs like, a barbarian who could pretty much just attack or bungle through with sheer HP. This did make a kind of useful baseline for things about 'why i think Fighters suck' and it did lead a little bit to better understanding of balance, and lead to discussions about what different variables (ie how different tables run the game) would move a class up or down the ranks. For example the three or so terminally online posters who would always derail a thread to argue about whether the Factotum class was B rank or S rank, based solely on if the table allowed the Iaijutsu skill from the depreciated Oriental Adventures book (Factotum was 3.5, Oriental Adventures was 3.0, which I know is gobbledegook to anyone who wasn't there.) The more things change, the more they stay the same I guess. Also, the color coding of adventures makes me think of the old 'handkerchief code' from ye olde queer culture. Going out to a bar and wearing certain colors of handkerchief on your outfit to signal who you're looking for and what you're into.

[@bensonprice4027]

Thanks for voicing what I've been thinking about online discussions about D&D for years. Most online discussions I've read feel like a waste of time unless they are talking about styles of play.

[@ethan_anthem]

Hey Matt! Long time fan and patron of MCDM! I'm a linguist (and content creator/pro DM) by trade. This is actually a topic I've been meaning to talk about for a while now. And you have highlighted the issue so eloquently. What is a language? Is it what we say, or is it the 'rules' we learn? What is a game? Is it the rules we read or the rules we 'learn'? Languages and games share a lot in common: They are rule-based, can be used to describe or simulate ideas, and must be learned by the users. But the "learning" process introduces a lot of noise across the userbase. Noam Chomsky (1986, Knowledge of Language) distinguishes two conceptions of "language": E-langauge - e.g. "English", external, conventionalized by communities I-langauge - e.g. An internal, mental representation of one's language (Edit to add - At the time [and still] there was debate in the field of linguistics about exactly what constitutes the object of study for linguistics - is it the things people "say" or is it the internal, mental representations of their language that should be of interest?) Just like language, we have to learn game systems by exposure to data, but ultimately we all observe different data and find unique conclusions. We can all claim to be playing "D&D", but in practice, it's hard to know if we're playing the same 'game' because we can't compare mental rules. In essence, every player and group will have their own interpretation of how the game is run; As the old wisdom holds, there is no wrong way. Chomsky argues that the concept of e-language is incoherent, that it is essentially impossible to find because of language's subjective nature. Games often suffer the same fate, but endless argumentation takes place because (i) people are not discussing language or games in the same sense (e- vs i-), and (ii) some just cannot accept that game knowledge is entirely subjective, despite broad commonalities in the popular discourse about the game (i.e. we all have the same rulebooks, and broadly similar opinions about how to rule some common situations). Really, thanks for bringing this topic to light. Best, Ethan (Lyres for Hire)

[@jamesgasik3424]

Thank you Matt, this is something I've been dealing with for as long as I've been gaming. We're not all playing the same game, and even trying to get everyone to play the same game suffers from pushback as not everyone wants that!

[@satiricalbard1]

Great video, and so so true. I have seen lots of LFG posts use something like your 'alignment chart' concept when pitching campaigns, and did so myself for the game I'm currently running. Categories vary a little, but generally include Combat, Social Interaction, Exploration, Puzzles, and intended/desired (player) Experience Level. Each might have a low-high type of quantitative measure indicating how much it there is relative to other elements, and also qualitative comments ("character death happens in my games, be prepared for that", "voice acting optional", etc). The thing is, I've seen the same published adventures given quite different ratings for the above categories in different LFG posts! Which perfectly captures your description of the 'problem'. Especially with the social and exploration pillars, different DMs can run the same published adventures in massively different ways.

[@cloudstone123]

This reminds me of when I first started playing Legend of the Five Rings. It was me and two friends and we always played as a group because we only ever got together as a group. Group play works different than one on one play because you want to be able to fight off group attacks and win so you try to build up your forces and hand size so that is how our decks were built to work. So imagine how it turned out for us when we went into one on one play outside our region against decks designed only for one on one play since that is how others were playing it. We got smashed hard. It changed our perspective because we simply never played another way beyond the way we started.

[@neilhewitson1617]

I am playing Pathfinder 2e. Is it D&D? Well, yes if you remember that the game is still the same as 5e, just with different rules to handle things. So when I talk to another D&D player, we are still talking the same hobby, just with different rules.

[@nicholasromero238]

I actually love 2e because of how easy it is to tweak the game to match the needs of my table and even campaign by campaign

[@nicholasromero238]

I actually love 2e because of how easy it is to tweak the game to match the needs of my table and even campaign by campaign

[@B-019]

@@nicholasromero238 Yeah, the subsystems and optional rules do a good job of letting you add those mechanics to the game to suit your table while still keeping a baseline of balance. 5E apparently had this in mind at its inception, but I don't think it really lived up to that design or idea.

[@kilm2232]

My simple solution to combat taking an absolute age with my five players was simple. At only seconds per turn, if they started discussing tactics, then the enemies would start moving or attacking. "As you shout tactics to each other and get involved in deep strategy discussions, apparently ignoring the enemies, the goblins look at each other, shrug and start swinging their clubs at you." I got a lot of resistance initially, but now combat in RL takes seconds to action, the fight is so, so fluid and fun and people have to make decisions on the fly with only time to shout one one thing to their team mates. Everyone really enjoys combat now and it's a ton of random fun.

[@SoulisStar]

This video is just want I needed. Thank you Matt. I play in a combat oriented group and I have found I like RP. And I run a game for a group of non tactically mind group. It’s nice to see people see this issue

[@DavidStavis]

This is my favorite of the ideas you've shared so far. I would value that color-coded system more than every edition of Arcadia that has been published so far, and Arcadia is pretty rad. Please make one! In order for that color-coded system to gain popularity, it would have to come from someone with renown, and that person is YOU!

[@hylianjim6484]

Bartle's Taxonomy I think might be what you're proposing, Matt, Extra Credits did a video on this years ago for types of players, it might function the same way you mean. One axis is interacting with the world vs acting ON the world, and the other is player-centric vs world-centric. It's 4 quadrants instead of the alignment chart's 9. -Interacting with players is Socializers (like a world HUB, or just going about a market and all-out roleplaying/drama geeks) -Acting on players is Killers (like a PvP, or in this game strategy/war game) -Interacting with the world is Explorers (like open worlds, or discovering the actual world-building) -Acting on the world is Achievers (actually reaching the end of the game/campaign) Hope that helps. :)

[@davidcollier2500]

The main draw of 5th Edition for me is how easy it is to modify and create my own house rules. I will steal liberally from other editions but 5e is simple enough to add all of the nonsense I want from other sources.

[@nicholasromero238]

This is what I love about pf 2e; the game gives you the tools and design philosophies under the hood of the game, so making homebrew is super easy. I straight up make monster on the fly now when the pcs pick a fight with something I didn't expect or whatevs

[@davidcollier2500]

@@nicholasromero238 I will have to give PF2e a shot sometime. If I can talk my players into trying a different edition ha ha

[@horserage]

@@davidcollier2500 If not, hell, it's PF, just pop a LFG and you'll get SOME people.

[@B-019]

@@davidcollier2500 I'd highly recommend the Beginner Box for that purpose -- it's an excellent intro the world and mechanics of Pathfinder for both GMs and players. It also has a follow-on adventure if the party wants to keep playing with those characters in that setting called "Troubles in Otari" that continues teaching the mechanics in a way that feels natural and fun. And if the mechanics of PF2e end up not suiting your group or you want a taste of that world before moving systems, Paizo is making a conversion of their hugely-popular Abomination Vaults adventure path to 5E, which takes place in the same town of Otari. While it obviously won't have the exact same feel, Paizo's adventure design is REALLY good and worth checking out, regardless of system.

[@nicholasromero238]

@@davidcollier2500 Id have to second the beginner box; never played it myself, but I hear a lot of rave reviews; I introduced my group back when it was in playtest stages I personally love trying out different systems though, and I'd be lying if I said 5e didn't influence my DMing style and opened me up to the world of house rules and 3pp

[@JustKellH]

I like this a lot. Thank you for giving pretty words to thoughts that have been kicking around in my head.

[@DJHansYolo]

This is very helpful, thank you. I didn't even know where the friction was until I watched this video. I always feel a sense of unease when I freestyle the rules or change up encounters on the fly. This video makes me feel so much better about doing this.

[@andrewsnee]

Someone came up with an axis back in the early 80s. It was wargaming (simulation and tactics) vs role playing (fantasy and social) on one axis and power gaming (personal goals and advancement) vs story telling (campaign world goals) on the other.

[@HouseDM]

Thank you so much for making this video, Matthew! I literally was just having a conversation with someone about this 😂 The timing, my goodness.

[@esperthebard]

Real talk here 👏

[@mrscrufflemuffin]

One player at my table often extends combat with really long turns. But I eventually realized it's because she has never played a game like D&D, and never takes for granted that "just attacking" is the optimal action - as opposed to tying a crowbar to a rope and swinging it around, or throwing a parasitic worm at someone.

[@candmlyons]

I play with a player who has a powerful character build but continually makes crazy, suboptimal combat choices due to their general lack of combat gaming experience. It drove me nuts at first, but now its one of the most entertaining parts of our sessions.

[@AmethystEnd]

She sounds amazing.

[@Dyrnwyn]

Why so long? Does she take forever to come up with her action? Is there a lot of fumbling around by the DM figuring out what she should roll?

[@falsenames]

AD&D 2e had minute long rounds, with turns taking up 10 minutes. This fits perfectly into the history of the game. Still, with 5e's 6 second turns, I can see a good slight of hand check allowing for a crowbar rope trick, or throwing a jar of worms at someone. Just have to be proficient at... whatever you can convince the DM you're using a skill for.

[@MeanderingMikesManCave]

Glad to see these videos are back on a semi-regular schedule. Very much appreciated @Matthew Colville. Excelsior!

[@sandimtavares]

Love the suggestion on color coding and making an alignment chart for analyzing your group. I play in many different groups, of different sizes and levels of tactical ability, and I'd love to be able to preface an online discussion with that information more easily.

[@adam_______00015]

What a fantastic take. I sure hope the future of DnD contains more thoughts and purposeful design like this, we all benifit!

[@issacthompson330]

This has got to be the most genuinely helpful April 1st video posted this year.

[@eponatwospirithorse4980]

I can always remember when 4e divided the D&D community many went off to play Pathfinder and complained that 4e was no longer able to be a role playing game, now I ran a 4e Campaign for 8 years and me and my players had huge amounts of fun, we did end up having one big Dungeon Crawl that lasted close to a year and after that there were long periods with only occasional battle scenes and lots of Roleplay interaction with NPCs and within the Party itself. It worked well because the players were all a groups of friendly social types who became good friends out of the game over time sure we had a few folks who came and went around the edges but the core remained steady. As Matt says it is all about style and that differs so much from group to group. I remember that I first played D&D back in 1976, yes I am an old bird now, but loved the thought that my fantastical daydreams of the worlds of Lewis, Tolkein, Moorcock, Vance, Burroughs, Leiber et. al. could be brought into clearer focus with a group of like minded daydreamers, though I don't think I analysed it that closely at the time :). Just to expand for a moment we also played many other RPGs with varying degrees of success from Metamorphosis Alpha which itself metamorphosised into Gama World, Traveller, Top Secret, Tunnels and Trolls (Take that you Fiend), Bunnies and Burrows, Call of Cthulhu, Runequest, Vampire: the Masquerade, Cyberpunk and many others. If someone liked the idea of running a different game, we would give it a go, some we played for years other fell by the wayside, but in the end it was all about having fun with good friends, being silly together even as we grew into our adulthood. Life gave many of us a hiatus but as families have grown and the pace of our lives have settled many of us oldies have come back and we have welcomed the new young bloods, many who have joined the ranks of TTRPG players as a direct result of the Critical Role TTRPG resurgence. What a wonderful time to be a Role Play Gamer.

[@AzureIV]

I think the main problem that people had with 4e is that they had all these powers for combat, and no powers for non-combat (until later material in 4e), and people were blinded by wanting to have a similar power mechanic outside of combat. They kept looking at the combat side and seeing how interesting it is, but with nothing being supported on the non-combat side. They always wanted to get to the cool powers thing, so non-combat didn't seem "viable" or "fun", that it was lacking. I loved 4e, both as a DM and as a player. It wasn't like there were many, if any, things besides skills and the like in 3.5e D&D during non-combat situations.

[@Dyrnwyn]

This is the paradox of TTRPGs that no one seems to understand. Most of the rulebooks are devoted to combat rules and abilities. Therefore, people think, the game should be mostly combat, AND that if there are no mechanics for the social side of roleplaying, that means the game does not support roleplaying. But the rulebooks have so much space devoted to combat and abilities because those are the things that are easiest to codify; the easiest to fill books with to sell to gamers. The heart of the game is freeform collaboration between players and DM, until an outcome is uncertain and a roll is required. Ironically, the more that games have noncombat or social abilities and mechanics in them, the less roleplaying there tends to be. It just becomes more of "I use X on Y. I rolled Z."

[@falsenames]

Coming from a mid 80's start in D&D, I honestly thought that D&D 4e was a decent RPG that just didn't feel like D&D. It felt too conforming between classes and way too much like you just kept repeating the same thing over and over. I've pulled a lot of what I consider great things from 4e like minions with 1hp and the "bloodied" condition into 5e, and it's been great. Level 20 capstones of a "get out of death free card" for each class is friggin amazing. But overall, it just didn't have that chaotic D&D feel, leasing to too many classes just feeling like they are doing the same thing over and over.

[@falsenames]

@@Dyrnwyn I tend to agree with you for the most part here. Just want to clarify that this depends highly on the group of people playing the game. I've had a few groups of people playing very highly socially mechanical games where we considered the game a rousing success if we did not have to roll a single die.

[@TheDoughboy1917]

I really appreciate what you do Matt, you make these great discussion videos and it doesn't feel like you're constantly talking down to me.

[@anonymousvelociraptor3046]

That is actually a fantastic idea, in the current environment we end up with these 'one size fits all' adventure paths that either expect the DM to do a whole bunch of work filling in the details(which defeats the entire point of buying a prewritten adventure) or are just so generically vague that they don't have any driving force behind them(looking at you Tyranny of Dragons for your complete lack of motivation or player buy in).

[@twilightgardenspresentatio6384]

None of the groups I’ve been in over the last three years has enjoyed talking about the game outside of the game. When I played twenty five years ago there was before chat and talk afterward that helped expand and focus the game on what the players wanted. That’s how I know they were happy, they talked about what they liked and didn’t

[@philosophyofiron9686]

This is fantastic subject to just be a random thought. Creating typologies (or even stat-blocks that could be tested into by survey?) for different sorts of groups of players, and then tagging, tailoring and/or offering suggested customization options for content accordingly is a really interesting idea. I've lately been thinking about something similar, which is about what "stats" it is that PLAYERS (not player characters) tend to come in with or develop playing video games that impact their experiences and levels of success. Things like the self-restraint to resist risky attack opportunities that carry a significant chance of being punished, for instance. Also, I would caution against underestimating how much the discussion you've just raised actually applies to video games as well. For the From Software-made soulslike games at least (Dark Souls, Bloodborne, Sekiro, Elden Ring) players are also continuously talking past each other based on assumptions that we're all playing the same game, when really, the types of decisions we tend to make, our playstyles, our backgrounds in other games and genres, our attitudes (ex. adverseness to dying or trial & error cycles versus embrace of them), and our philosophies about playing games in general leave us with drastically different experiences of what is ostensibly the same content. For example, a no-guides, no builds, blind-run purist who revises their leveling and progression plans continuously; largely rejects grinding or farming; feels high investments in HP break tension and immersion; mostly uses clothing and armor for RP/fashion purposes regardless of stats, and is okay with long death loops to brute-force through challenges that seem almost unreasonable for one's level (Me) is going to end up experiencing more or less a different game from someone who looks up guides and charts; levels according to community-accepted optimized; specialist build-plans and metas; dashes straight to or farms for the most desired weapons and gear; avoids anything they perceive themselves to be "underleveled" for; dumps a ton of stats in HP to allow breathing room for mistakes; uses combinations of gear to game the system; seeks to use the first-order optimal strategy against every boss to win the most efficiently with minimal possible risk; who dislikes uncertainty and is adverse to trial & error. Not to mention the question whether or not you use co-op or NPC partner features that appear designed as "easy-mode" concessions on first playthrough or not. When trying to discuss Dark Souls games and their ilk, foundational assumptions about things like the above tend to go unmentioned by all sides, as if we all assume the default, baseline approach to play for purposes of discussion is our own, so it need not be brought out into the light, examined and specified. This has lead for me personally to phenomena like me finding the game Sekiro on release immediately and consistently to be obviously From Software's most laughlably easy game in the past 10 years, and then be absolutely stunned when I rejoined the community after my blind run and found there was a substantial popular opinion considering it the unquestionable hardest - the widest, most unbridgeable-seeming opinion gap possible. That gap and my difficulty communicating with people across it seems to be informed by all these features about how we play this game and the entire series its part of that almost fundamentally alter our foundations of experience. P.S. If one is curious what the experiential ramifications of the playstyle I mentioned for myself might look like, I think the videos on my channel of the combats against Elden Ring's "Margit, The Fell Omen" (short) or Dark Souls II's "Graverobber, Soldier and Explorer" (long) are good examples.

[@danielgriff2659]

Glad to discover your channel and another Matt DM talkin about D&D!

[@kenanbrown3147]

Absolutely love the point about the Avalon Hill game disclosure system. I run 3 games, one is highly social, one is highly tactical, and one is a split. One has very seasoned players, one has moderately seasoned players, and the other is full of rookies. Knowing a rating system for tactics, role play, and experience/difficulty would be super helpful. I also miss disclosures for games on how effective it is for solo play (which is the only way I get to play as a PC instead of DM these days).

[@sitnamkrad]

I'm very happy with this video since it addresses one of my biggest peeves in the Tabletop community. Which is people saying "If you don't like this specific style of play (usually roleplaying, by which they mean social encounters), go play a video game". TTRPGs are one of the most flexible types of games, the idea that there is a wrong style of play is simply ludicrous.

[@sketchingjohn1678]

Matt, this was GREAT!!! Maybe modules/adventures could be rated simply by COMBAT/EXPLORATION/SOCIAL and which comes first second and third? I also liked that you embraced the idea of making adjustments on the fly. And if you overestimate an encounter and don't want to slaughter the party, the monsters can always run away.

[@agonleed3841]

I'm new to all of this. 37yrs old and didn't get into it at younger age. always interested but I didn't have that group around me to consistently be in it but the options I did have were great so undont regret. I had a very active life. but now I have a full family and I want to play as a family and also join some tables as I've found them around my area. all in all, this was an interesting recording

[@davehuber3503]

Matt... this is next level communication. I bet many of your fans are at this level... and struggle daily with the rest of civilization who don't communicate at that level. Bravo to you, and keep it up.

[@iPuzzlePirate]

7th Sea 1st Edition (and I think Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering) recommend giving your players a zero-session (or pre-zero-session) questionnaire it calls "The Other 100 Points" or "Campaign Interest [Sheet]". Players have 100 points to place in the categories: Intrigue; Action; Romance; Exploration; Military, and basically they're ranking them. The GM can then look over what the players put in each category and use that information for creating a campaign that the players are more likely to enjoy. It also has a handy Campaign Interest sheet the GM can fill in and tally up the totals of each category and show the highest rating and lowest rating in each category in an easy to read way.

[@dhmcarver]

Great discussion. As one of those old AH box game players, I appreciate your attention to that detail (GMT still does that for their games). It would be great for something along those lines being brought into dungeon design in D&D. It is usually quickly become clear from a thread where someone lands on your proposed spectrum, but I appreciate it when someone has the foresight/humility to say, This is what my style of play/my table's style of play/table dynamics, etc. is, and this is what works, or doesn't, for us.

[@N3MOII]

The rise of Adventurer's League and the necessary degree of standardization would have to contribute to this greatly. A slightly related story: my first game was a group of strangers who met at a LGS, and the DM had us roll stats (4d6, drop the lowest). Myself and another player rolled very well. After a few sessions, one of the players expressed her frustration at this and asked for us all to switch to standard array. The DM wasn't interested, and no one else at the table could really relate; we were having a great time. Long story short, she ended up leaving shortly after, but even to my rookie eyes it felt obvious that stats aren't *really* the be-all-end-all of DnD, and having a +1 in a dump stat instead of a -1 doesn't mean much when you're at the mercy of a d20 anyway. My variant human Ranger with Sharpshooter was admittedly a little much the first few levels, but even that was less of an issue when the DM learned to use terrain and creatures to close the distance, further proving your point about context being king.

[@rokkkrinn2793]

Love your Rush shirt collection. Power Windows is my favorite Rush album as it has Emotion Detector, my favorite Rush song. House rules at my table are 10 minute short rests and healing surges.

[@MultiProGGer]

In my opinion, The Dark Eye has a pretty good system for ‚rating‘ adventures. It first gives a really short (2/3 sentences) description of what you can expect from the adventure. Then it lists some genres that fit, which often helps to see what it‘s about on a high level (like Intrigue, Romance, etc.) It tells you how complex the adventure is for the DM and for players, how experienced the characters should be (i.e. their level in D&D terms) and it includes a 1-4 rating of „social skills“, „combat skills“, „physical skills“ (climbing, survival) and for „living history“ which tells you how significant the adventure is for the development of the setting.

[@MrKililae]

I totally agree. Me and my friends had a roleplay and boardgame group that played everything we could get our hands on. We played a lot of Settlers of Catan and it was first when we meet other groups of players we realized we had unintentionally developed a lot of house rules. For us it was just how the game was played and it was balanced, but it really confused others we played with. Even "simple" games can run into the situation discussed in this video and it's an important topic :) Great video as always!

[@sebbychou]

An easy way to see how tables work completely different is "what does the players use money for?"

[@starssandwich5093]

Are you referring to tables that have strongholds and domain level play?

[@EidolonOfAggression]

@@starssandwich5093 not op but I can kinda see what he means. Some players will hoard the money to save up for the next item upgrade asap (i.e. plate armor, magic item from the convenient magic shop, etc.), some might invest it in building a base. Some might use it to make sure they always have all possibly relevant adventuring gear on hand, others might pay off a crew of hirelings to help them adventure. Some might use most of it for bribes and carousing, and others yet may be shuffling off 99% of their earnings to some backstory related destination like an orphanage or family, creating a financial blackhole for themselves. Each implies a certain focus for the player/table, be it making an optimized character for combat, exploration, or social challenges; a long term base building fantasy; or just to have an RP reason to continue adventuring. Of course most tables will see a little bit of everything, but individual players or sometimes even just player characters will definitely have their preferred focus.

[@sebbychou]

@@starssandwich5093 Referring to how money is basically useless in 5E RAW but is an important feature of the fantasy, so its a very common place to see houserules or whatever.

[@danielhale1]

We have a similar issue in the tabletop game Star Wars X-Wing. Often when someone is asking about whether they should buy a ship or build a fleet a certain way, it's important to ask how they play the game. The casual player is focused on how it feels to fly and/or their love of the lore, while the competitive player is specifically asking "will this win tournaments for me?". On the old forums we used to have a player who would interrupt players conversations about a ship they loved to abrasively ask "But is it good.", and it always felt like a backhand to the players who were talking about how much they enjoyed flying the ship in casual play. If it's dominating in the latest meta, that tournament player sees no value. Often the casual player doesn't care about winning, they want to have a fun time flying an interesting ship or fleet. I've definitely experienced this in RPGs like D&D, Mayhem, etc too. I've learned to not ask for help on the forum in building a character, because people will rather bluntly tell me I'm doing it wrong and the objectively correct choice is X, regardless of my plans for the character, how my party is built, the style of the campaign, or how I like to play. I used to plan builds out to level 20 just in case (because frankly in pathfinder and dnd 3.5, failing to plan was planning to fail because feat/class requirements were so ridiculously stiff), but honestly these days level 5 or 6 will suffice, maybe 10; no game goes past that. And my GM, fellow players, and the campaign we're playing will determine far more of what class I want to play than any "objective" measure devoid of context.

[@napdogs]

Another essential viewing for all DMs. Thanks Matt!

[@brottongoodfellow5932]

I wish more people online would accept this, especially the DM’s when it comes to homebrewing. It feels like DM’s nowadays just want to be given the answers instead of making their own up.

[@Arthas30000]

To be fair, as a DM you're balancing a lot on your plate, so for newer DMs being given answers really provides a sense of security, stability, and something they can use as a good guide. When I started out, the very first game I ran was a mass dungeon crawl where I told my friends "I am going to run this purely monster meat grinder, with almost no role play" and we didn't even have enough time to finish everything I planned 😂 Now I've been running a campaign for 3 months with quite a lot of stuff happening story wise, lots of cool homebrew abilities, magic items, mosnters etc...it's been a wild ride from novice to less of a novice :)

[@marccaron6008]

That is exactly how we did it back in the early 80s. We would discuss it together when we weren't sure about a rule or wanted to create new ones. Each table/group is and should be different.

[@Zai-kyu]

I really enjoy your videos and points of view. I have been DMing for about 28 years and these videos are always refreshing and kind of comforting? I don't really know how to put it. This video was great because it touched on the fact that every game, every DM, and every set of players are different, which make for vastly different games. Different groups have taught me how to tweek encounters on the fly because, many times that's what you have to do lol.

[@darthnihilus1608]

You, as MCDM, are in the perfect position to make that happen then! Once you publish stories you can implement exactly that and see how well it goes

[@chadchristian6084]

This is why I tell new players/DMs that online resources, discussions and videos, even like yours here, CAN be good, but take everything with a grain of salt. It's already enough to try to remember everything in the source materials, let alone eeeeveryone else's opinions and unpoken (or quite loudly spoken) rules. Take the framework, then do what yall think is fun. Then maybe get more ideas online as you go.

[@challengeratingepic]

I do something akin to the axis. Whenever I run a session 0, I run for different players most of the time never run for them before, I use the 3 pillars of play to describe what kind of interactions the players are going to get when play that adventure. I rate these as percentages of the game. Comat - Fighting Exploration - Travel, Dungeon delving Social - Interactions with NPC (Not roleplay) I have had great success with this, not only dose this give the players an expectation, but it also allows me to get some insight on how they will want to approach, at least how they think they will, challenges when they arise.

[@karizma5521]

The proposed solution honestly wouldn't be bad at all. There already exists the concept of the "Three Pillars of Play" both in the DMG and in the general consciousness. In this case, there would only be four variables: Number of Players, Social Focus, Exploration Focus, and Tactics(Combat) Focus. You could simply have a string of four numbers (rating the focus of each pillar on a scale of 1-5), or just have a single number (for the number of players) colored to show which of the pillars you are focusing on. Red for combat, green for exploration, and blue for social makes the most sense to me. Finding some way to convey that information as efficiently as possible is beyond me, but a standard like this for written adventures would be such a blessing honestly. Assuming the adventure writers actually know how to evaluate the three pillars of play...well that's a different story.

[@Wraithing]

Absolutely. This same thought hit me the other day. I'm playing with a new online group at the moment. Utterly different to my last group (same size group, but totally different preferences - and capacities - as roleplayers). GM has a very VTT based style… and the rules implementation makes it a wildly different game to my last group… and on a different planet to my in person groups. Even my own D&D DMing has shifted and evolved in ways that can't be defined by rules (and edition) changes.

[@Backwardmail]

I have played DnD in five different countries now, with a variety of different groups and play styles. Each time I need to find new players I care less and less about mechanics and more about how respectful a player they will be.

[@michaelduke9057]

I deleted a long message supporting your comment but to make it simple it's willingness of the DM and players to work together and be respectful is the #1 factor for having fun. #2 is alignment on the type of game you want to play.

[@Voltekker]

This, this is why I loved D&D. The absolute personal story a table has. TTRPG's are my favorite storytellers.

[@geotrav1848]

So, I work for the Church at the regional level. One thing I quote to churches, all the time, is a great quote from a theologian talking about St. Paul. NT Wright says, "Our task is nothing short of the hardest conversion of all, the conversion of the imagination." That strikes me and resonates listening to what you're talking about here. Adventures I know are set up around certian assumptions about DND (see Adventurers League.) However, I like to run social stuff with small amounts of combat. What pre-written stuff do I use? Some kind of imaginative work around how we define things would be so helpful.

[@thomasace2547]

“A group of tactical players might tackle an orc encounter differently than a social group” As mainly a DM, who gets to play on Wednesdays, I like social encounters, but come combat, I’m definitely a tactical player Against the orc horde, and limited options, with the use of Wild Growth and Flaming Sphere, managed to kill over 500+ orcs in under 5 rounds

[@Zertryx]

This exact reason is why I've always felt the "Ranger" wasn't underpowered before Tashas even came out. because I always had to explain that ranger was a class that was more focused on Exploration style gaming and it just seemed most groups only talk about "Combat" when having online discussions about a Classes or abilitys Worth.

[@GadoukenRising]

The PHB Ranger isn't terrible from an optimized DPR point of view either. It can be both!!

[@Zertryx]

@@GadoukenRising I mean i also agree, i just find it funny that people always talk about balance with combat being the only factor that most conversations take into consideration despite the game being a RPG and there is many other aspects that cant quantify "Balance" D&D was never ment to be "Balanced" because there is too many variables to every do it

[@GadoukenRising]

@@Zertryx Definitely! I think people tend to focus on combat balance because there are lots of numbers to compare and many small factors that are easy to quantify. "Soft" skills/features for exploration and interaction are basically impossible to balance, and I think that's ok.

[@mcox2171]

The idea of color-coded or a number system of communicating what kind of player or dm or group you are is awesome. I would love to see that become a standard in the community

[@jjmeyer74]

I feel like this argument is best suited for the 5e Ranger. I personally love the concept of the design, but if you are a group thay focuses on optimization of tactics, it only sometimes benefits the groups in specific situations.

[@pedroscoponi4905]

I suspect that the people which are most annoyed at the ranger are the ones that love the concept and the theatrics of playing a ranger but are disappointed at how underwhelming the combat features are. 🤔

[@Sound_Tech]

@@pedroscoponi4905 I'm feeling this tension emerging in my new game. I have two players, one took the MCDM Beastheart, the other is a Tasha's Swarmkeeper Ranger, both 3rd level. We ran a Danger Room as part of our session zero and they seemed alright but in seesion one, our Ranger was starting to feel the difference between the actions and decisions the Beastheart was able to make with his actions and companion compared to his few combat abilities.

[@secretname3897]

@@pedroscoponi4905 that's sort of the point: the difference in everyone's expectations versus the reality of official DND rules. I played a ranger in one of my first ever campaigns, and (among MANY other issues with the DM) the DM refused to adjust anything to fit our style of play. I really wanted to play a ranger because I felt it would be fun to be a sneaky cover sniper for my crew. But combined with a min-maxer playing a tank and a nooblet DM who didn't know how to tweak or set up a game suited for everyone, it was one of the least entertaining gaming experiences I'd ever had. However, under one of my CURRENT DMs, I'm trying an archer again, and it's an absolute blast so far. To me, the base rules of the ranger are fine and make for a fun class, but the implementation of those rules at the table is where a class can fall flat. Hence OPs comment and Matt's video!

[@big53mac]

As an optimiser (hope I'm not about to get cooked for admitting that) I can happily confirm for you that ranger is actually a really strong class

[@cephelos1098]

It's actually the opposite for Ranger. Optimizers sing it's praises, even before, but especially after the Tasha's changes, but many players who wanted the fantasy of playing Drizzt, or a "master of their environment," were disappointed by Ranger getting a bunch of features that either totally invalidate the Exploration pillar, or don't help it at all.

[@davidharper238]

Very cool, as always! I'll do my best to remember this the next time I see someone exclaiming about rogues being overpowered, instead of just assuming they're "uneducated".

[@ericlesage316]

I tend to discuss systems more then specific rules in a game. That infiltration of a gala and doing a whisper campaign sounds way funner as a Blades in the Dark score then as a DnD encounter. Mostly because the baseline rules and reward structure of Blades in the Dark are for me more in line with gala infiltration and involves less work for me as GM then running that encounter in DnD 5e, unless I ran it as a 4e skill challenge I guess.

[@encheiridion]

I usually love all of your videos because they are open-minded and generate healthy discussions and I have incorporated a lot of your tips and way of thinking about designing and running D&D. This one takes the cake because I think that could resolve a lot of issues from the very start and I'm stealing it. I think that instead of a 2 axis chart it would be interesting to do a graph of every single player at your table (love/heat of roleplay, exploration, tactical combat, rule of cool, and everything else you can think of from 1 to 10) that result in a score for the entire party that can inform you on what do they like and dislike and what to tweak in the adventure that you are running or choosing. I'm a psychiatrist and there are a lot of these kinds of tests that can be adapted and generate very sound results. I'll try to create something like that.

[@Spaecefaeries]

With regards to an alignment chart for dnd tables, I always think of Mark Rosewater’s player profiles for Magic: The Gathering. He conceptualized MTG players as Spikes (competitive players) Timmy’s/Tammy’s (players who like big splashy cards and effects) and Johnnys/Jennys (players who care about pulling off a trick with a deck more than winning). Outside of playstyle there’s Vorthos (who care about the flavour of cards) and Melvins (who care about minutia of the rules and niche mechanical cornercases). It’s interesting that there’s never really been a neat equivalent to this in dnd. There are plenty of terms to describe different types of players but most are semi-pejorative (minmaxers, munchkins, power gamers, murderhobos) and none really to refer to the general makeup of a table.

[@MrTheholycole]

I thought for sure you were about announce a resource that color codes adventures based on how they play.

[@ohwowitsthatguy9154]

Doesn't Adventure Lookup have a tag system? EDIT: It does, but not by style or genre. Something worth looking into.

[@Incurafy]

Ditto, and I wish he had.

[@Bluecho4]

More adventure designers could do with including options in their modules for how to adjust the content of the adventure to different groups. A few modules I've seen have options for alternate encounters, for higher or lower level PCs. But we could also do with options for if the group is larger or smaller than the average (more or fewer PCs). And of how to make a narrative game more combat-y, or a wargaming adventure more rich in roleplay opportunities. I mean, ideally, if you're designing an adventure well, you'd have different approaches to solving the problems in mind. You don't need to predict all solutions, that's impossible and probably undesirable. It's often good to just leave the situation open, and let the players convince you, the DM, as to why their plan should work. But having _some_ options on the table makes it easier to signpost them, and makes it easier to improv a resolution. Another reason to include options in your adventure, when you're writing a module, is that _other DMs_ walk into modules with different goals. Often enough, DMs are looking for material they can cannibalize for their own adventures. They may not care about your rich narrative, because all they wanted from your module is the map, the monsters, and maybe the _vibes._ This is fine. This doesn't mean you've failed as a designer, or that those DMs just don't appreciate your vision. They're looking for tools to make their games easier. Give them a plethora of options, and there's probably at least something they can use. If a DM's group had a good time because of something they took from your adventure, you've succeeded as a designer. (Though, obviously, the easier you make it for the DM to adapt your module to their game, the better).

[@robertnett9793]

I have a table with 5 players and I am in the 'combat takes too long' camp. So I will try to reduce on 'random combat encounters' or better any combat that isn't really necessary. For example when the adventure states: If the players fail to sneak, then a combat with three guards will happen. Well... I think you can handle those miniscule combat situations with one or two rolls instead of pulling out minis, placing them and fight the combat in two or three rounds - which likely end up in half an hour real-time. Like - depending on how much you fail your sneak roll and how the player thinks their character reacts to it (another skill roll, either combat, acrobatics or whatever) the character takes then more or less damage. We still describe how the combat plays out, but consider the rolls. Because frankly - the result is the same, but you cut down 80% of the time. This keeps the momentum of the situation (for example hunting a certain evil priest through his lair of doom, while occasionally getting ambushed by his cultists) and you can use this time saved to bolster the two important combats - the evil priest and his body guard, and the demon he released with his dying breath...

[@harjutapa]

The alignment chart would need to be at least 4 axes: Single Player----Large Group Tactical----Casual (I do NOT think that Tactical and Roleplaying should be opposite ends of the same axis) Socially involved----murderhobos Roleplaying heavy---numbers oriented As a player, I prefer small groups, am tactically minded, and love being well-plugged into the world around my character. I try to rp more, but I'm honestly probably more numbers oriented compared to most players. As a GM, I tend towards small groups, somewhere in the middle of the Tactical/Casual spectrum, and my groups always seem to become murderhobos who love roleplaying.

[@Katspearl]

I like this!

[@regressionrpg]

Power Windows is a top tier Rush album, higher than Moving Pictures. The problem with talking about Rush is how much people like synth and I love it.

[@digitaljanus]

Grace Under Pressure is my dark horse candidate. "Distant Early Warning" and "Red Sector A" are way up near the top of my personal list of Rush tracks.

[@jeffreyfreeland1730]

The difference of tables and styles is hugely under spoken of. This video was great