For the rule of cool situations just say "remember, everything you can do, the monsters can do too" and the laws of physics will suddenly become sacred.

BUT BEN

To quote tv tropes on the rules lawyer: “Obnoxious Rules Lawyers manipulate the rules to give themselves advantages, Dumb Rules Lawyers will always insist on following the rules even when it's clear it won't work, while Helpful Rules Lawyers play by the rules even if that puts them at a disadvantage, and will even try to use their knowledge to help out someone else.”

"You're supposed to be keeping track of my hp and spell slots and stuff too." Me: *maniacal laugh* Okay my notes say you're dead in that case.

The best players remind the DM of things even if it hurts them.

“Everyone who would get a bonus from the new system wanted it and everyone who would get a penalty didn’t.” So Congress, basically.

My DM just had a general rule of: Once the turn has ended, that's canon. Many a time us players have forgotten about some debilitation we had. Equally as many times, the DM has forgotten an entire mechanic of the boss he designed. We always just shrug it off and carry on cuz that's just easier to do.

Ive been a DM for about 20 years, and my rule is what I call Macgyver: if you can reasonably argue something being plausible, and the table agrees, I'll allow it, and try to figure out the necessary buffs/debuffs/rolls required to make it happen. So, throwing a sword like a javelin. ...weird, but *technically* possible with a longsword, if you think about how theyre weighted. Okay, but you'll have a short range and damn high DC to actually make it work. And with something like Misty Step? Havent had that problem but Id be willing to at least hear the argument that "well I have seen the area moments before, it's only a few feet away, what about calling it a leap of faith?" Or people counter-arguing that if they do that there should be a chance for it to go horribly wrong, like teleport fused into the floor. Not to sound old but 'back in my day' DM was judge jury and executioner, period. DM was god. Willing to listen, but at the end of the day if DM says shut up you're wrong: then shut up you're wrong. *shrug* just my 2 cents on all this. Glad I havent had players as annoying as some of yours sound.

"That shouldn't be how it works. It's magic!" Uh... according to the magic rules, that's exactly how that works.

That explains why I couldn’t find a certain video: where Puffin loses a board game in the 1st turn

"Players should realize that the final decision is the DM's: not theirs, and not this booklet's!" D&D Basic Set Page B60

Rules Lawyer is to me : "I will argue whatever rules we have, to support my claim, and only my claim." usually the people who roll dice, and pick it up after and have a habit of "bad math"

One of my rules as a DM is, "If a mistake is made before the end of someones turn, the dice are re rolled. Once the turn has ended, neither the player, or me, can go back to fix it." Overall, it balances out.

the term you're looking for, especially when invoking lawyers and law, is "precedent."

So I think I get what the "I love dice rolling for stats but hate that it's random" guy means. And it's more that it's a bit *too* random. You might like the idea of a character that's strong in some things, and not in others, and to not know what those things will be before hand. But the problem is that rolling dice is truly random and not a normalized randomization of the average point buy. You can end up with a really dull "10,10,10,11,12,10" or something that just makes a really "bad" character with no strengths like a n"11,4,6,6,9,8". Not that those are necessarily bad to all players, and some might find a Normal McAverageson master of average stats or a useless-at-everything character to be an entertaining idea, but many would find that difficult to play or enjoy. I think some people appreciate the *idea* of randomizing their character just not being prepared to live with the full breadth of possibility that entails. Which really is kind of where 4d6 *drop** lowest came from in the first place. Problem with that is that you all too often don't get any weaknesses. Whenever I use that system as a player I've tended to roll high in most stats, and then ask the DM if I can self-nerf one stat to be like a 6 for the fun of it. *edited reroll to drop it was just a typo.

This is partly why I love online D&D for dice rolls. No questions, I can see your sheet and the calculations that are occurring, no questions asked.

Definitely need to be careful with those homebrew rules. Things can quickly descend into chaos lol

"You're the DM! You're meant to be keeping track of my HP and Spell slots as well!" Me, Looking down at the various HP trackers of multiple battle encounters, NPC notes, Dungeon notes, maps and encounter tables, monster statlines, and campaign notes, then back up to the cheeky fucker who thinks its also my job to keep his stuff in check *NOW LISTEN HERE, YOU LITTLE SHIT*

As a DM, any time "rules lawyering" begins to descend into pointless arguing I make a judgement call. I tell my players, "This is how it played out today. We can discuss the rule after the session and agree as a group how the rule will apply moving forward."

I'm fine with rolling 3d6, just so long as we can put our rolls in the stat of our choice. Putting the first roll in Strength, then Dex, etc. is a recipe for misery.

Lawful Good Rules Lawyer: Ensures that the group is playing by the rules, even when it goes against their favor. Lawful Evil Rules Lawyer: Ensures that the rules always benefit them and is otherwise perfectly happy to forget them when they don't. Chaotic Evil Rules Lawyer: Only brings up obscure rules or interactions when it's super inconvenient and severely interrupts the flow of gameplay. Chaotic Good Rules Lawyer: "There's only one rule - if you're having fun, rock on."

Rolling for stats is fun. It's amusing when the GM asks for everyone's saving throw result and you can announce "-1."

As far as the roll for stats systems, I use “4d6, take away the lowest die”. That works for me.

PF: Says the word random 20 times with ever increasing hysteria. Me: You OK over there?

5:20 "You, as a DM, find 1 problem and 9 more pop up" So, you're saying being DM is like working IT

We had a general Philosophy of "You live with your mistakes" That applied to everyone at the table DM or player. So there was an understanding that sometimes you might get an unnatural advantage and sometimes a disadvantage. I feel it help the group focus more on keeping track of stuff and letting each other know about rolls/buff/debuffs. It is IMO about finding the right group sometimes and slowly working your way through issues.

I've gotten somewhat of a reputation in my group for being a rules purist. I routinely have to call out other players and tell them "hey, no, you can't do that". Most of it is because of the other players not being really that experienced, but I can see why it can be frustrating. We've got our Paladin who keeps forgetting that Divine Smite takes a spell slot, so after about seven rounds of combat I'm like "Um hey, how many spell slots you got left? Can you even cast Find Steed?" Or our rogue who thinks sneak attack is something you add to every attack, not just one attack. "No no, you've already used your sneak attack this round, you can't use it again." Or our fighter who can parry as a reaction. "You've already parried an attack, you can't take an opportunity attack because you parried." Recently some of the other players started telling me that I was kind of being a prick for doing so, because I never call myself out for messing up, so lately I've been saying things like "And since I already cast Zephyr Strike, I can't Hide as a bonus action, so I guess I'll just end my turn normally." They can be pretty chill sometimes though. Once we fought an armored bird creature as a bossfight. To keep it from flying, we paralyzed it with arrows and javelins dipped in potions, and then started going ham on it. Our GM forgot that paralyzed creatures take all melee hits as critical hits, and so when we figured this out we were like "oh crap, that thing should have been dead a long time ago." But I sorta just shrugged and said, "Well I guess it just had Adamantine armor on and we *just now* knocked it all off." And everyone was alright with that.

I'm glad I have the group I've got, we were in a pretty beefed up fight (I wanted them to lose an encounter for once, they did, not TPK they retreated like I hoped), the party Wizard went down, she had become a lich by this point and was going to come back, but after the encounter was long over, I was like "oh shit your a lich, you're immune to crits and at least 2 of those were", he shrugged it off saying he forgot about that too and said it was still a cool encounter and we'd deal with it when we went back for round 2. I've got a player that likes to nix a skill or feat here and there which is ok as long as everyone gets the option and he does in fact help them see if its good or bad ideas, he does like to min-max but having cross checked his stuff several times it's always completely within the RAW.

When my dad was DM, every time we'd get off-track asking questions about the dice rolls or exact rules, he'd say something like, "The giant pauses while your characters argue with one another about something called a 'monster manual,' and he has no idea what you're talking about. His eyes begin to glaze over. Then, suddenly, he snaps out of it and swings the tree at you again..."

I've pointed out situations where the DM had advantage, its only fair. It's a two way street.

Maaaan, I have a lawyer in my group. He is constantly arguing about some rules - all he considers is his own gain. His latest proposal was - I want to be able to kill someone with one blow if I roll high enough stealth or the person is sleeping. In order to avoid combat. He was really pissed that I was not allowing "such a cool RP moment". He plays a monk, not even assassin. Their half-assed attempt at infiltration has gone awry and suddenly he was like - well, I want to hit this berserker from behind and since he hadn't notice me I think I should be able to drop him in one hit. WHAT?! He was totally cool, said it should be a blanket house rule. I was like - ok, than monsters would be able to kill you in one blow also. And suddenly it was unfair.

Late to the party. My simple rule when DMing is once the end of the round is reached no backises. That applies to me and the players. The players accept it because as I am running many things at once I sometimes forget that x monster didn't attack or use its special ability, while the players running just their character make fewer errors. Same applies to mistakes that benefit either side - catch it during the round or it is done. This becomes important when the consequence of an act only becomes apparent several rounds later. Best example was a monk who charged to attack a spellcaster at the rear of a melee not realizing that they would get trapped away from help when reinforcements arrived. "I wouldn't have done that if I couldn't escape". No, you did do it because you thought it was safe to do at the time.

“This is the rules lawyering video.” OBJECTION! “I need to talk about it in a more serious, less silly tone.” Oh... (kicks rock) Sorry, Puffin.

Just want to let you know that you’ve helped a group of 8 soldiers get into D&D and other rpg tabletop games. You’re videos are awesome man, keep it up ! 👍🏼

“Rules lawyers” has such a negative connotation because it’s usually someone arguing about how a rule should apply to them, and that they deserve an exception for one reason or another. It’s the same guy asking for advantage for one reason or another, usually the same guy who thinks he is playing a video game and is the type of video game player that will stand in a doorway and crouch to bug out enemies into not being able to hit them. People hate them because they constantly slow the game down or get mad because of rulings, and will constantly ask you to justify your decisions. They are not fun to play with because part of their fun is “being the best” while putting in the least effort possible.

6:23 the rule of cool states that it’s fine as long as it doesn’t give you an advantage mechanily your players really are bad for trying to use the rule of cool to gain advantage

"I like rolling for stats but hate that it's random" can be directly transliterate as "I like rolling for stats and getting super lucky rolls compared to everyone else. Otherwise it sucks"

"I like rolling for stats but I hate that it's random" That literally just means he likes having higher numbers than standard point-buy.

My group understands the golden rule, "The DM is always right". And thankfully, regardless of which of us is the DM at that time understands that rules are there to guild fun gameplay, not get in the way of it.

I roll because I like the clinky clink of 4d6 hitting the table

I actually had a reverse christmas thing happen to me recently but it has a happy ending. An out of state friend of mine wanted to start dming his own game and had asked our online group to roll up level 7 characters and that we can have either two uncommon or one rare magic item. I decided to try out the paladdin class and to make myself extra smity I took the Sword of light as my rare item of choice. My dm didn't realize that a lot of rare items are a bit to powerfull for characters at level seven. He had asked me if I would be willing to nerf my sword with the promise he would buff it up as the story unfolded. I thought about it for a few minutes and came up with a very creative nerf for the sword. I flavored that my sword is ancient and the power source has broken over time/got lost/ ect. To activate it I have to be channeling divinity and if I rolled a critical hit I have to make a Con Saving throw (dc10). If I fail the saving throw I take 1d6 necrotic damage as the sword is pulling more power from me than my channel divinity can provide. My dm liked it a lot and even gave me a long sword +1 to use when not channeling.

Taken from my collection of House Rules: 23. Avatar the Last Rule Bender. Rule of Cool does exist, and your DM doesn’t want to constantly say no when you try something crazy. If a particularly important event or scene would be made way more satisfying with a rule-bending, you may do so, with your DM’s consent.. Pushing your abilities beyond their normally limits is very exhausting and dangerous, and requires taking levels of Exhaustion. Depending on the severity of the rule bending, your DM will inform you ahead of time if it will cost 1d4 points (Ex: Making a skill check you normally can’t because of proficiency restrictions, or getting a small modifier to the behavior of a cantrip or 1st level spell), 1d6 points (Ex: Making any skill check with advantage, or getting a substantial modifier to a higher level spell), or 2d4 points (Ex: Taking “Dying Actions”, Legendary Actions/Reactions, like blasting a villain with a 9th level spell after watching them murder your family and it was still the villains turn). You take the levels of exhaustion at the end of combat, or at the end of that scene. In any case, you may only use this feature once per play session.

'IF YoU dOn'T LiKe RaNdOm, tHeN dOn'T USe RaNdOm!" best quote in existance.

For me, "rule of cool" translates to "things the players could normally do but want to be fancy with" Example: Players are in a bar fight and the rogue wants to swing from a chandelier to get to an enemy and make an attack. If the player could've done the same thing by just walking there and attacking, I'll let them do that. If the player avoids an obstacle or expects to not receive an attack of opportunity by doing that, then it's a no-go.

"Those people" are the worst. I ran a group for my first time and everyone was new to the game. 1st session went great! 2nd session.... I found the rules lawyer. He went home, studied up before the next session, then proceeded to act like he knew everything. Then the hypocrisy. Then the "that's stupid, it should work like this". All for the benefit of his terribly stupid incredibly strong half-orc. Every time he missed, every time he was hit, every time the party was role-playing well. I believe people that HAVE to have it the way they want in order to have fun are just bad players and bad people in real life. If you're gonna play a game, look for the fun in failure. Don't be so self absorbed and actually embrace what the game is. Immersion at it's finest

Just handle rules lawyers like how you handle edgelords and vampires, drench them them in holy water and debt

"Yall wanna complain about roll for stats? Ok, 3D6 in order. Roll it."

Videos like this I enjoy the most. I don't know why, I like hearing Puffin talk about how to be a better player or what to do / not to do.

"When you think about a lawyer...when people complain about lawyers; they [lawyers] are just saying whatever they have to say to get the thing that they want. They don't actually care about the rules at all." Best explanation ever.

Being a first time player I can honestly admit that I was "that guy " because it was my first character and I didn't want to get hurt/lose my cool armor. I didn't realize that I was making the game not fun or unfair. But after the game was canceled and I wasn't invited for a new one, I started to question if I had done something wrong. It hit me hard. But I learned. And I'll never forget. Sometimes you have to learn how to play well with others, and sometimes you have to learn that the hard way. But I'm ready to try again. And I'm willing to be more of a team player. But honestly some people (like myself) just have to realize how they affect others in a game.

dang, i loved, and was looking for that video, it was hillarious

I really enjoyed this video, Mr. Puff. It feels honest and brings a great perspective.

I really loved that Nobilis video.

After playing Disco Elysium, I feel like I understand why Rules Lawyers exist. When failing a roll only results in your character getting hurt, or looking like a fool, it isn't fun some people (me). I realized when I entertained the idea of save scumming, that I was only doing that because I was trying to make the character an extension of myself; I wasn't enjoying how much 'I' was failing. After that realization, I decided to play the character in a way that was vastly different than my real life self, which started to make the game more fun for me. Still didn't enjoy bad rolls, but they were more tolerable now, even fun occasionally when they resulted in a unique story path

Best Video so far! Do more of this stuff.

Glad to see this, still miss the old video. The example of the monk wanting his attack of opportunity when fully restrained was good one. I liked how you explained the traditional (stickler) vs lawyer in the old video with the animations. Keep up the good work!

One time I was playing with a DM who changed her ruling mid-battle. She had let my druid escape from a Shambling Mound by casting Freedom of Movement on myself. However, after our Cleric got engulfed, she decided that being engulfed didn't count as a condition that FoM would work on. i was kind of miffed about that. Then I got the cleric out by casting Polymorph and turning him into a Tyrannosaurus, so all was well.

OBJECTION ! My client pleads that ruling Magical North Korea was an acquired right from the DM. Furthermore, Mr Abserd wishes to exercise his right to make Flatch Kriga exclusively distributed by Otterton Fisheries LLC. Please refer to the Most Favored Otter law of international commerce for clarification.

6:03 I expect my table to keep track of everything involving their character. I try to keep an eye on it, and if it's a negative effect I keep a closer eye, but it's their job as players to be honest and keep track of what's going on. If theres no threats or penalties, theres no real reason to put encounters. I was also blessed with a very good table tho

It takes alot of effort and awareness to see flaws in work and to re-evaluate and re-upload. I applaud you. Well done sir.

I always establish in session zero, as foreverDM, that my word is law. if i say something its not to harm anyone in particular but so the game can continue with as few hitches as possible and i spend No time arguing with someone unless i made a mistake and multiple people agree, at which point we look up the rules and rectify it and i make a note about it so i don't make that mistake again. Homebrew is different because i made those rules and i sometimes change them, but ive never changed a rule mid game.

Honestly, I use the term Rules Lawyer in the same way you do: it's someone who will use, abuse, or ignore the rules as it benefits them. I guess I can see where that other definition is coming from, but the sleazy definition fits the term so much better in my book.

The difference between a rules lawyer and a rules bargainer. I appreciate how you made a clear distinction between the two in your original video.

I would like to thank you a ton for this video. Through most of my RPG career, I have had a good deal of experiences about me being called a rules lawyer/focusing on the rules to much, etc. So I had forced myself to stop doing it since it annoyed the others, slowed down the game or what else they had as a complaint. But, there would be times where others would throw the rules around, call out my choices as "bad" or "this is better".. It was really confusing to me for a long time, and I never got around to understand "what am I doing wrong?". So again, thank you.

My take away from this video is that rules-lawyering and "rule of cooling" needs to be a two-way street.

"Rules are for me to inflict upon other people" Welp, that's Lawful Evil for ya.

Your skill in framing issues has evolved and matured, congrats.

I've watched pretty much every single one of your videos Puffin and they're all equally... GREAT!!.. 🙂

that reminds of me of that time in Darth & Droids when Jim rules lawyered himself to death.

"If you're someone who doesn't like it random, don't do random, if you don't like random. That's what it means to be random; it's random." ~Puffin Forest to every dumb player ever

The PHB specifically says that the DM has the final say over any rules decisions - in my opinion, the DM's job is to decide when to say "We're going to ignore the rules becuase that'll make it fun."

I'm just glad the Open Legend video is still up

I’ve been looking for that rules lawyering video recently.

"THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS TO BE RANDOM! IT'S. RANDOM." Preach it, my good sir! :D Spread the word of RNGsus!

That was an awesome video. I discovered you when my players shared that video with me.

something that works like a charm for spell slots: Use different colored beads for them, give the players the beads and tell them that 1st level is X color 2nd level is Y color 3d level is Z color and that if they want to use a spell of that lever they have to "pay" a bead of that color, the players have fun with the shiny colored "ammo" system that feels like a minigame and it's easy to keep track of it

As a long time GM, here's what I found helpful: • Just call the shots and find ways to collaborate to make it fun. • If a player is consistently annoying, set them aside after game and make it feel collaborative. Like saying, "I'll run things how I have them for the pacing, but if you have a couple notes for me, I'll see how I can make it fun for everyone". • I play with a lot of story-focused or friendly players from theatre, improv, marginalized peoples, or larp groups. • Using games that aren't D&D. Sooooooooo many games are as fun or more but easier to learn for everyone

It's been so long since a "discussion" video regarding DnD so to speak. I'm a big fan of them so this is a nice surprise.

Excellent video, very inspiring. My next character will be a laywer. One that enforces "the rules" of his realm.

When I did a lot of Dm'ing, I was almost always willing to work with players because I was lucky and had players who were very consistent. Also, most of them were new and looked to me to kind of set how flexible they could reasonably expect situations to play out. And like I said, since many were new, I let them have more rules of cool that I'd normally allow just because they were really getting into the game, adding extra flair other than roll to hit, you hit, roll for damage, etc. I would try and describe how the player's attack and the enemy's response would play out. Stuff like: You just barely missed the AC so as your blade arcs through the air, the enemy shifts their position causing your blade's swing to impact with more weakness than you expected. The smooth metal pauldron deflects your blow away and the enemy looks no worse for wear. Or if they overkilled an enemy by a lot, I'd tell them that their underhanded greatsword swing bit into the body of the "insert enemy here" with a wet and meaty noise. Your swing was so devastating to your opponent that your greatsword continued slicing through the enemy's body, nearly cutting them in two. They have little time to even scream, let alone react, as their blood pours over your sword. One time a player asked if their greatsword had gotten stuck in the enemy and I had determined that no, it wasn't stuck, she'd be able to free the blade fairly easily. She asked if she could do the thing where she places her boot on the body and just 'mighty boots' the enemy off their blade. I say 'absolutely'. They're getting into the game, if people want to be more descriptive and really let their imagination go wild, awesome. As long as we can maintain our pace. She then said after she kicked the body off the blade that she let out a scream of triumph since it was a significant character moment as though her character was strong, they were also a bit afraid to be in a real battle where they could die. This scream signaled that she'd gotten over her reservations and was fully committed. I asked her to roll a d20 and decided to play off the rule of cool and make it so that her triumph inspired her allies, so everyone's next attack would benefit from Inspiration. That was a great group. Large, but great. I'm wondering if the player who said they liked rolling but disliked the randomness was maybe referring to that with the pure randomness, you can end up with an extremely weak character. So I usually had a couple bad luck counters for when rolling for stats as many liked rolling as it usually made for more unique characters than a point buy system. My anti-bad luck was if you roll 6-8, just auto reroll unless they wanted to keep it for an RP purpose which happened sometimes. And when rolling, the two crappiest rolls, roll again and pick which ever result you want. So the occasional 16-18 in stats, a ton of 14s-10s, and you know all the rest. We did have one person who had a wisdom of six once. That was pretty funny. Absolutely NO common sense. Almost a perfect representation of an absent minded expert.

I run my tables on one simple rule concerning "false" rolls: "What's done is done, if the dice fell, none of you corrected me and I narrated the outcome, that's the state of the world and if you want to change things retroactively, you better start collecting those dragon balls."

The best game ever seen in my days was when my friend told another group, "You guys should roll 3d6, no assigning where the rolls go", so you had folks rolling straight down the stat block, and the folks who had decent rogue stats ended up being halfling thieves with "Cheese x2 Wheels" and "Bread x2 Loafs" on their inventory, because pretty much everyone was "basic" and so they were less heroic heroes and more some local do-gooders who brought lunch with them while they cleared out rats from a local cave.

I was at your PAX panel and it was amazing!

I am actually happy you remade the video. I also had similar opinions about addressing the audience as a singular person in your original video.

What a coincidence. I was just rewatching all of Puffin’s old videos last night. Now I’m sad to learn I missed all these earlier ones.

"I like dice rolling, but it's too random" Someone slap this player. I am happy with my current 8 Str, 10 Con Halfling Wizard. I am scared for my life with my 5 HP, and having NO attack spells wee~~~~

When it comes to rules I had and ability the DM had questions on how it worked I just read him the text about three times then showed it to him in writing and let him decided how it should work as a DM and a player if my /your turn is over what you did is written in stone we do not do reconing past attack rolls. I was playing and after my turn we remembered I had something that would have given me and advantage on my last attack and the DM looks at me and is like lets redo your attack I am like no just keep moving forward it is done. What is worse then rule lawyer is the rule expert that is feels the need to show off all the D&D knowledge they have. When not asked or there is not even a question. When I am playing the rules in my mind should be between the DM and the Player unless asked. Also Puffin I love all your videos they are awesome keep them comming.

I completely agree. I remember the previous rules-lawyering video and appreciate that you have adapted to a less combative style for this topic. When rules are concerned, they are around for everyone to adhere to, generally speaking. Whatever the rules are, they should be adhered to consistently and equitably. I personally like the official rules of 5e. But if everyone in the group wants a different rule set, that's fine. Just administer the rules consistently. Your example about rolling for stats is spot on. "I love rolling for stats, but hate the randomness".

My group used to call this "Scooter Ladders." They had a guy (Scooter) that would stack up old calls, rules interpretations, situational advantages, and just try to nuke the game. So whenever someone tried doing mental gymnastics they would say "Stop building a Scooter ladder!"

I recently started a campaign in which my friend was the DM, and I was a fan of what he did to avoid rule lawyering. Before our session 0, he typed up a document listing how the rules of our campaign were gonna work, which rules stayed the same and which he homebrewed, and posted it in our discord server. Then he gathered us in the vc to go over it and explain things. All of us players then understood what we were getting into, proceeding to make characters and start the campaign. This level of clarity from the DM can help to mitigate rules lawyering, but at the end of the day, those who really just enjoy playing the game will be willing to adhere to the DM’s rules, provided they aren’t too far removed from the base game.

I am so happy about my group. They never argue with me as the DM and just accept how it is. Of course sometimes they say that I missed something but then they just accept if I change the situation or not.

I actually got into your channel and DnD from that original rules lawyering video

Thanks for this! I'm a noob and am trying to watch out for things that I should avoid falling into... This is a good video for me to watch and know what NOT to do when it comes to "bending" rules or even when to approach my DM for things like that. At the moment I just kinda let everything roll. If we screwed up, we write it into the RP in some way and if there's something that happens shortly down the line that's detrimental BECAUSE of the screw up prior- I'll ask for some help from the DM and we'll make a small bend back in a positive direction.

@7:47, During character creation in a 3.0 Game I asked the DM "How do you want to roll Stats?" "It doesn't matter" was his answer I started rolling 3D20's :)

I'm a firm believer that if the DM and group want to change a rule for a home game, then the newly adapted rule stands, and it is always applied, because everyone agreed on the specific rule. Otherwise the book rules apply. Mistakes happen, each table is different in how you deal with mistakes. If it's a quick catch, deal with it then, if it's a remembered mistake from three rounds ago, then make sure it doesn't happen again. Your table, your group, your rules.....Just stick to them, and have fun! Great video!

Excellent video!

I use it in a similar way, a rules lawyers is usually someone who argues for their own benefit, not in the spirit of the game.

Honestly, I really liked the old video, because it talked about how there are two types of rules lawyers: Those that just want to make sure the rules are followed (which is my kind), and those that only want to use them to their advantage (what I am sometimes confused for). I like being able to point to that when the topic comes up. You might not like the video, but I still request its return. Please?

I appreciate your insights. As a DM, I actually really appreciate it when players don't want their characters to get hurt. It shows the players care about their characters. I usually have a mechanic in my games where some characters can be resurrected at least once. Either one NPC friendly to the party has a resurrection spell scroll, or the friendly priest is a secret Deva, etc. So if a player has a character they love and they don't want them to get hurt, I give them inspiration for following the rules and ask them if they want their character to be resurrected or if they came up with a cooler character. Really cuts down on rules lawyering in my games.

Wow 700k Congrats puffin I stopped watching you for a little while once I started to play dnd less and I'm pretty sure you were at 300k or 400k at the time Your channel has really grown I'm happy for you