That's not what he said at all. He pointed out that recommending a game and then listing examples that aren't actually part of the game's core rules is a bit weird. It sets an expectation that may lead to disappointment or argument. "I love Rimworld, it's got so many Big Naturals in it" would be, I presume, misleading \* \* I've never played Rimworld but I assume it has Big Naturals mods like everything else

No. These people are welcome to play however they want. They're having a good time and that's great for them. Pitching this as "d&d is great" when the entire story hinges on multiple table specific rulings makes this both less relatable for players of d&d used to a different tone of play and can set unrealistic expectations for new players who might join a game that plays very differently. I'm not saying they shouldn't play like this, or that this isn't d&d. It's just a very specific scenario that is quite likely to be non-representative of many games.

I'd say this is more of a "RPGs are great" moment than anything else. Any table *could* have stories like this with any system. It's only a d&d story in particular because that's the most popular system. Any system can be house-ruled to do whatever, and that's the joy of pen and paper games as opposed to board games or video games, where the rules are more difficult to change.

Every table uses some form of house rule though. The description won't be your exact D&D experience but it IS a typical one.

That's kind of my point though. It's still d&d, even with house rules. So it's perfectly fine (imho) to say d&d is great. If it's less relatable to you because of that then... don't relate to it. I enjoy reading about other peoples fun sometimes and couldn't give two fucks about the ruleset they use. But hey, different strokes and all that. Expectations for new players will most likely be "oh, this sounds like fun" more than "i want to do this super specific thing too and will be heartbroken if i find out it was all a big lie". About representation i must say that most tables o played at had some house rules.

There's a spectrum of play that runs from strict rules-as-written to complete calvinball. Calvinball can be fun, but it's not really a transferrable game. It's very particular to that moment and that group. Sometimes people post wacky calvinball moments (eg: rolling damage against the floor, a free action to eat tiles, a +2 bonus to hit) as if that's baseline RAW DND. It is not. Many tables would be like "wtf, that's not how this game works". So it can be kind of weird when it's presented as obvious, as if it's raw, when it's just make pretend. Imagine if the post was "we were playing basketball and I missed the shot, so I got in my car and drove up close so I could jump off the roof and dunk". Like, wacky story but not how you're supposed to play the game. Furthermore, DND *specifically* is kind of bad at creativity. It's very precariously balanced, with specific rules in odd places and no rules in others. Compare with, for example, Fate, which has "this thing in the scene works to my advantage" rules built in. DND is almost entirely in the hands of the DM.

Loosely, you get a "use object interaction" every turn that isn't given a lot of emphasis but is in the rules as "other activity on your turn" (pg 190, PHB 2014). It includes something like opening an unlocked door during your movement, picking up something within reach from a table, or unsheathing your sword as part of your attack action. It says it should require an action only if it needs special care or presents an unusual obstacle. I'd agree that grabbing a handful of dust and putting it in your mouth could be a free action.

Phantasmal Force is great. Used it on a Mini-Boss fighting alongside the Big Bad and then described "a giant goose comes crashing through the skylight, with it's head low it charges you with a furious 'HONK!'" The DM played along a little by rolling to randomize what he swung at each round. Everytime he'd swing at the goose to "keep the illusion" I'd describe that he successfully hacked off a head, but now two more sprouted in its place and the honking intensifies. The best part was the last sliver of damage he took was from the Phantasmal Force. So in his mind he was slain by a hydra goose.

If the room was bright... yes, it would! Even if only momentarily.

A DM once attacked our party with wargs in an arctic tundra in the dead of night. I discovered an offensive use of Create Water.

I didn't know familiars had laser sight on their cloaca

When you think about it, the body of any living creature is an open container made of animal skin.

> Furthermore, DND *specifically* is kind of bad at creativity. It's very precariously balanced, with specific rules in odd places and no rules in others. Compare with, for example, Fate, which has "this thing in the scene works to my advantage" rules built in. DND is almost entirely in the hands of the DM. It was never intended to be a complete, all-encompassing ruleset. It's a framework that you build on. It's intentionally open-ended because that allows greater freedom for both the DM and the players. If the rules are too strict then the gameplay is just mechanics with little room for roleplay.

D&D is great *because* it allows for creative freedom and doesn't require that everything be explicitly permitted in the written rules. It is always the DM's prerogative to set a DC for any action and make the player roll for it, then roleplay the outcome, which is a lot more fun than just saying "no, you can't do that because it's not described in the rule book". This isn't "homebrew", it's the right way to play.

Yes, completely agreed. There are also systems *much better at this* than D&D, which makes calling it out as being the "great" thing here even more out of place. If you want crunchier rules that have these kind of flavourful interactions you could play PF2e, which literally lets you roll intimidate to debuff your opponent and you have the actions available to do so after swinging your weapon. If you want something looser and more freeform that encourages improvisation maybe take a look at Legend in the Mist or something.

> Just don't want it to be a consistent thing. Easy, make the player deal with the consequences of eating a handful of gravel.

I always see rolling a 20 or a 1 as an opportunity for rediculousness to ensue and the modifiers help decide what kind of rediculousness. Skilled swordsman rolls a 1? They have a hilarious fumble meanwhile someone who's never picked up a sword might be stabbing themselves with disadvantage (because the goal isn't to kill the player but to let the dice add flavor. Also accidentally stabbing yourself would probably do less damage than intentionally stabbing someone) Person who's never picked up a sword rolls a 20? Guess they're now demonstrating awe-inspiring sword skill that they will never be able to match

Only with the proper feats

I'd go so far as to say it's not just the DM's *prerogative* to set DCs for actions the players want to take but literally part of their job as specifically outlined in the core rules on ability checks. The fact that the DM presumably set a DC for the intimidate check is also not the part here that's in question.

> The fact that the DM presumably set a DC for the intimidate check is also not the part here that's in question. OK, which part is?