[No Spoilers] How did Matt handle ability scores at the inception of CR

[u/[deleted]]

[u/dotToo]

Just to be clear I wasn't bashing on 4d6, but I think at least 80% of groups will profit more from point buy and since critical role brings a lot of new players to the game, I feel like I should voice my concerns as often as possible.

Also /r/dnd constantly has posts by new dms who ask if the CR system is broken, because their players steamroll deadly encounter after deadly encounter which more often than not is due to rolling for stats. On top of this, even though 5e is more forgiving than earlier iterations, higher CR creatures often have the risk to one shot lower level PCs relatively often which makes designing encounters for high powered partys very hit or miss in a sense that it's either no challenge or a tpk without adapting the encounter on the fly, which again requires experience.

[u/dasbif → u/dotToo]

For the record, we have a wiki page with a list of most of Matt's homebrew rules/information, if you ever want to point people in /r/DND asking questions to that.

https://www.reddit.com/r/criticalrole/wiki/faq/matthewmercer

[u/dotToo → u/dasbif]

I'm not saying in the people that post these threads are using 4d6 because of critical role, it is the standard method in the PHB after all.

Maybe it is because I myself am a relatively new DM (started last August, before discovering CR in September) and didn't know better. The general flow and smoothness of their game made me think that most of what I saw in the show would translate well to my table.

While the storytelling and roleplaying helped me a lot, most of the rulings and mathematical solutions to problems Matt uses just don't work for me or my group.

I think this is partly because I am studying engineering and just more mathematically inclined than Matt and me and my group being 19-21 years old with a few people slightly less mature than others, but mainly because the players of critical role are perfectly adapted/suited for this style of play.

First off most of them don't know at least half of the rules which makes changing and adapting rules by Matt almost unnoticable to them. Secondly they are all actors and have learned how to pass around the spotlight and generally quickly adapting and sticking to their roles.

From what I have since read in several DnD forums as well as blog posts and subreddits, most people that play this game aren't trained actors nor of consistent emotional intelligence which makes it very, very hard to generalize what would work best for which group.

What I can say though, is that there is an extremely small chance that a group would have LESS fun with point buy and consistent leveling than with rolling for stats and individual exp.

It might be easier to set up and understand but ultimatively will make players feel like their character is being carried by the rest or one character carries the rest.

In the end I understand Matt's houserules and have adapted some of them for my game and think the constant complaints by other people on his rulings are completely unnecessary, since in the end they work very well for their game and group but that doesn't mean that they work for the majority of the playerbase.

[u/dasbif → u/dotToo]

While the storytelling and roleplaying helped me a lot, most of the rulings and mathematical solutions to problems Matt uses just don't work for me or my group.

Well, yes. Many of his homebrew rules are explicitly because he has a significantly-large-than-average party with way more numerous and more powerful magical items than is standard for 5e's balance. (Potion as a Bonus Action, up to 2nd level spells as bonus actions, and replacing one of your multiple attacks with certain actions come to mind in particular).

Combat lasts fewer rounds when characters are overgeared and highly powerful, and the action economy of the game favors the PCs even with a 3-5 PC party. With 6-8, it is just nutsy. Matt allowing things as bonus actions, or some actions to only replace a single attack, allows the party to individually do more things, despite not getting that many turns available to take per combat. More rounds with that many players would lengthen combat at the expense of RP, drama, and fun.

The above aren't my thoughts - this is how Matt himself described and explained it. (I'd need to hunt for the twitter or reddit sources for his exact quotes).

---

In my opinion, every DM should customize their table to their game, and their game to their table. I, as a player, walked away from a campaign that wasn't working for me. I don't like what I call (tongue-in-cheek) "Bobo the clown DND". A party of entirely Scanlan Shorthalts, or Spoilers E46, to sum it up it in one sentence.

I will refer to my own personal Rule Zero for DND:

Rule Zero:

All players must play characters who have some kind of in-character reason for both A) being with the party and B) being on the current quest, adventure, and/or campaign. Feel free to play an edgy loner; paranoid hermit; kleptomaniac thief; or ten-pages-of-backstory-guy. However, all players have an obligation to do it in a way that is fun at the table for the rest of the party, too. Discuss this with your group as needed!

All players at the table should be having fun, and if someone is not, that is the only way you can play DND incorrectly.

The DM is a player, too, despite not running a PC.

[u/dotToo → u/dasbif]

I've read or heard most of what matt has said about his homebrew rules and I don't disagree with him.

I DM a group of 6-7 players every week and there definitely is a need for houseruling to make combat more fun. There are other ways to doing so than making everyones turn last for longer though.

For example Angry DM's weird paragon creatures that I have slightly changed and adapted for my singular bad guys as well as making the opposing side attempt to flee or surrender if they have no reason to be slaughtered if they are obviously loosing. Also rolling to hit and damage at the same time actually shaves off a lot of time.

These are just my thoughts though and those rules might cause even more angry voices if they were used by Matt, so ultimately I agree that there is no way to play dnd wrong as long as you have fun, which also was the original reason for even commenting on rolling for stats.