Was This DM Wrong For Not Letting A PC Come Back To Life? | Narrated D&D Story
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 гру 2023
- It’s so refreshing to get to hear both sides of a conflict. In my opinion the DM didn’t properly articulate the lethality of this campaign. I wasn’t there but from the world setting and the rarity of diamonds I would imagine player death’s would be pretty rare or the DM would have told them to bring a stack of character sheets because this is going to be a meat grinder.
But I am glad that the DM recognized that they didn’t do a good enough job explaining the world and allowing the player to come back as a reborn.
So, in my opinion, a happy ending that the community came together to help resolve. I consider that win.
Before we take our leave, don’t forget to subscribe to our channel, All Things DnD. Stay tuned for more amazing Dungeons & Dragons content every Tuesday!
Submit your D&D story here: / allthingsdnd
Join our Discord: / discord
Follow us on Twitter: / allthingsdnd
Credits
Story Source: Reddit
Video Editor: Shawn Kadian
Editors: Lonny Foran (written4reddit@gmail.com)
Narration: MyLo (Twitter/VoMylo)
Thumbnail Art & Channel Artwork: NalaFontaine (Twitter/@nala_fontaine)
#dndstories #dnd #dungeonsanddragons - Фільми й анімація
So a way to "fix" this, there's one revival spell that I know of that doesn't require a diamond.
It's Reincarnate, which requires oils and other stuff worth 1000gp, but doesn't require diamonds or the like, therefore could still be used in that setting.
One game I was playing my character was a rock person with movement of 15ft who got reincarnated as a mermaid with a movement speed of 20ft. My mermaid, bouncing around on her tail, moved faster than my rock lady who had two legs. That's just how reincarnation be.
the only mistake the DM made was giving the expectation of a balanced encounters. cause it sounds like the party got in over their heads and someone paid the price for it.
Good on the DM for sticking to his guns and for realizing their mistake in setting expectations.
To bo honest, if they lost only one character to bad roles, then the encounter must have been relatively balanced.
It wasn't a TPK: just nobody revived a single PC on time.
This creature can be dangerous so I am curious if it was nerfed.
I have mixed feelings about this one. On one hand you knew the rules going in. And quite honestly, death happens, it's part of the game. Plus it's really not that hard to create a different character... I mean is the DM stopping you from making another cleric? With that all said, I personally would never have some of the pretty members be a higher level than others. Plus if you're going to do a hardcore campaign I would probably start everyone at level 3.
Didn't the DM said they didn't know the rules in the followup message?
@@schwarzerritter5724based off of the DMs explanation, I kind of feel that they were selling themselves short of what happened. My thing is that the player knew, in his own explanation of what happened, that permanent death was a thing. Then made some lame excuses of why they couldn't move forward.
There's a difference between "you can't be resurrected with this spell if you die" and "I will purposefully gimp the players so you die." 1. Two players are still level 1 three whole sessions in.
2. They had to fight without equipment.
3. Two players had to dip partway through the session and the encounter was still scaled for four people.
@@jasonsimmons4409there’s absolutely no reason that encounter happened. Especially since this campaign was xp based. Like death is death. But don’t throw me some bs like a rock lands on my head and my character is dead
@@jasonsimmons4409 Perma death is fine when you know it is going to happen. Getting rocked by an heavily unbalanced encounter (Water Weirds are very fast and invisible in water plus even higher level folks struggle against them) is not fun for anyone unless they were told "You will die lots. You will die over and over again." The GM basically said "Res won't happen, just be careful." The Player and the party was right to be pissed off but the player could have been a little less entitled. Both player and DM sucked here but at least the end result was what both wanted.
I'm confused about the options the DM offered.
1st option - Party quests for over a month to acquire a diamond to resurrect dead party member.
2nd option - Dead party member makes a deal with the Devil, and thus has to provide a diamond every TEN days.
Now, I know the month is REAL time, not session time, but... If it if feasible for a single player to get a diamond every 10 in-game days if you ignore the moral implications, and while ALSO following the normal quest... Why would it take an entire party more than 4 sessions to get a single diamond one time? Even if they were NOT willing to set aside their morals and conduct rampant thievery and/or murder?
I get that this was a series of bad luck rolls (Bad roll on trap, bad rolls on death saves, bad idea to split the party) but it feels like both the DM and players were not well prepared to handle how deaths would work in this game where death was incredibly likely, either mechanically or emotionally.
I think DM was prepared since he suggested the devil pact quickly
Mixed opinion.
DM should have nerfed monster after two players left and should have explained world more thoroughly
Player knew how the world worked before hand.
My advice.
Player takes devil deal and DM works with him to break the deal and find redemption. Great chance for RP and brings character back
If the table thinks the encounters are unbalanced and not fun, it isnt hard to fix a 'dead' character.
The dwarf coughs up water as he was 'not quite dead'
No deal with the devil or resurrection required.
A level 3 monster shouldn’t be able to beat a party of 4. They made the mistake of splitting the party to explore an unknown underwater area. 3 bad ideas = dead Players
If the player or DM reads this, heres my suggestions:
1. Some monsters can have diamond hearts.
2. Have the PC be a diamond heart person. The used up heart can be replaced with a fake one. Either by organ transplant or artificer made one.
I'd imagine there should be enough people willing to sell their own hearts for huge profit for such things to exist.
@@michaelcaratti8344 Although its CR 3. From my understanding, CR scaling is meant to have around 3-4 or so characters at the same level as that CR, meaning it'd need 3-4 total level 3 Characters to be "balanced", Unless level 12+ or so. but the story states about half of the people in the encounter were even level 2, and thus they were underleveled for the encounter. Sorry for replying to a 6 month old comment
Pretty much fully agree with one of your last comments. As a player in this game with diamonds being so rare id have assumed death would have been equally rare if not more so
Honestly it irked me when the player said they couldn’t have fun in the campaign playing another character. The DM could definitely be more inventive with how to have this character live though; the game is all about fun after all so do what you can to make sure everyone is having fun
The player also acted like making a low level character was some huge burden. Most players I know have tons of low level sheets just sitting in a folder, or some dusty corner of their brain.
@@tepetkisOh, piss off. It’s work to create & connect a character to a world. “Just roll up a new one” is the Gym Bro half-wit answer.
@@justsomeguy9555 "work. " You need some perspective. Don't talk to me until you have finished puberty little Timmy.
@@tepetkis Kid, you got so much lack it’s hard to articulate, but damned easy to see 👋
So....
You could say these are blood diamonds
I am glad they came to a mutual compromise to solve the issue between them. Misfortune is always not well received.
However, the DM's way of not fully explaining the deadliness of his world was a gaping hole here. If you are going to alter the core rules of D&D, that needs to be fully disclosed to the players before playing. This way the players now know they are entering a campaign where death of a character is more of a possibility than expected.
As for the player, his attitude in response to this was quite below average. (assuming everything that was said is accurate)
One, saying he is attached to a character is a sort of flag of caution.
Two, that he didn't have time to create another character due to an unknown OOC personal situation, is quite frankly none of the groups concerns, and I am calling BS on that excuse. I think he just did not want to make another character, seems a flag to me.
Three, while I am not a huge fan of the choices the DM provided, (I would have selected to wait 4 weeks IMO) the players lack of compromise at the time is also disturbing. He had to know this game he entered is going to be harder when the initial light explanation was given. This should have prompted the player at session 0 to question further on details. The player failed to do this, so I cannot blame the GM entirely for the lack of explanation. More of a shared fault.
At the end of the day, if there was no compromise reached I would have just said to this player. "I am sorry this happened this way, but based on your reaction this is not the game group for you." In short, DM offered B, player wanted A.
You should always have a backup character.
Dm: *makes dimonds borderline impossible to find in a dnd campaign*
Me: "Oh gosh that 3 level dip into Zelot barbarian looking mighty tasty right now!"
I had a character Death with a DM who. Did the same exact thing. Tough it out make a new character. You’ll have fun. New characters are always fun.
The biggest problem, to me, seems less the overleveled trap, and more the GM should have better communicated the varying difficulty.
Fr I would be kinda flipping out about that encounter, underwater creature that grapples on attack, ambushing a party of level 1s with no swim speed and no equipment?
Been DMing for almost 40 years now... my only issue with this scenario is conveniently left out of the correspondence from both the DM and the Player. Was this telegraphed? If the PCs were warned in game that it was likely not a good idea to do said action, they should have rethought their course of action. Either wait for all of them to be there or find some other path. CR 3 is a hard encounter (according to WOTC) for PCs of 4 lvl 1 and 2 lvl 2... arguably deadly with the whirlpool. Personally I would have stopped the session and waited till the next week so all could be present.
Having a PC die is never a good feeling but it happens and as long as it is done "correctly" (this varies table to table obviously) it is nothing but part of the game.
I am done with "balanced" encounters... especially in D&D 5E being so superpowered and death exceedingly rare and resurrections making it not even an afterthought. The CR system is busted and the higher you go the worse it gets.
@@slagmoth maybe try a game in pathfinder 2e? Might need to fiddle with encounters still, based on how well the party's doing, but it's a lot more modular and simple.
@@denverarnold6210 I played 1E PF but we abandoned it because of the crunch. I know they say they have fixed some of that though. We are going more toward Shadowdark and Hardcore 5E we are currently playtesting the latter... will run a couple of the former as one-shots at some point later.
@@slagmoth comparing path 1e to 2e is like comparing D&D 3.5 to 5. It's a whole different beast carrying the same name.
For example: combat. Instead of the D&D style of a move and an attack, you have 3 actions per turn that can be used to move, or attack, or cast spells. Wanna move twice and attack? You can. Wanna attack 3 times, no feat needed? Yep. Wanna choose to case a healing spell at at different strengths by using more actions? That works too!
Player sounds butthurt they died and the DM sounds like a power gamer.
I am at least glad the DM and player found a common ground in the end and that they both learn from this small dispute. for the issue in itself, both parties did something that could have been handled better.
One is the DM with not allowing armor and heavy equipment into this place with an encounter for a very low-level party. At this point, the DM could have broken character and informed them that this place would be deadly.
Second is having a player refusing to make something temporary for just a few sessions. Now, they might have had an idea that the world wouldn't be so deadly and that the diamond hearts were just world flavoring but I find it a bit petulant of them to not expect the chance of losing a character, even though they spent time and effort on them.
Nevertheless, I bet the comments are gonna be very split on who is right or wrong here and I'm just adding my two cents.
4 sessions that is 1 month worth of real world time? Tbf if it is just 1 or 2 sessions yeah sure it sounds fair.
Quite the story, glad to hear the DM and player were able to work it out in the end
So you can throw a really hard encounter at players while still giving them a fair chance. My last game my group ran into a hammerhead bullet, IE earth shark, that on its first attack downed our wizard and put our bard and blood hunter at half HP.
We killed the thing because the creature needed to swim to avoid damage and my barbarian was able to grapple it as he came out of the ground after the downed wizard.
While it downed our wizard in one hit my barb took shot after shot while grappling it and never dropped below half HP with his rage going and since all it could do was bite I was the only one taking damage.
The mob was brutally strong but had an exploitable weakness and it honestly made me feel like a legit badass wrestling a landshark until we killed it.
Saldy it doesn’t sound like the encounter in the story even got close to this type of balance. If you are going to throw a creature at your players that is a higher CR than they would normally be ready for you have to give it a reasonable weakness they can exploit.
This is a very interesting development hearing from both sides! It does seem like they settled on something in the end, but this idea of intentionally making a not balanced encounter for narrative purpose does sound unsporting especially given the risks involved within the setting of the story. YIRBEL LIVES!
I'm anticipating being involved in a rather difficult campaign in the future, so in the event of one like this I would've figured might want to advise back up character in the event of pc death at least.
Oh i'm loving the picture in this video too the water weird looks awesome!
It's a level 2 character - there is no way the sheer volume of effort put in was all that back breaking.
The player is trying to whine their way into breaking the setting.
exactly
I may not be the most experienced player... but I could've sworn if you grapple then your attacks are at DISadvantage being your hands are trying to hold them as well as strike... which isn't as easy. EDIT: Though on the other hand... I was given advice I live by for characters now... put effort in... but don't be too invested because there's always bad luck as well as good, that can take the character from you.
An encounter appropriate for 6 PCs can easily be unbalanced for only 4 PCs. The Water Wierd encounter should have been adjusted. But, failing that, the party "finding a diamond" in the depth of that ancient temple to allow the Resurrection would have been a solution in keeping with the campaign as well as bringing the PC back. A * little * "Plot Armour" never was hated and finding a diamond from the heart of a previous unfortunate adventurer seems ok.
It was not even the too difficult encounter that killed the character, it was that the party was also handicapped in several ways. Underwater combat which cuts the swim speed in half, a trap that reduces it even further and deciding the party can't wear armour for it.
@@schwarzerritter5724 Yes. I completely agree. And All of those factors should have been accounted for when designing it since they make an encounter more difficult. It's possible that 6 characters might have "found a way" but cutting the party's power by 1/3 cannot be helpful no matter.
Didn’t we just do basically this exact same argument with the aging guy? What I said still holds: if you’re not having fun you have every right to walk away and if you can’t find enough concessions for the player and the GM to both have fun together then they shouldn’t play together
Unlike the aging one, death is an expected part of the game, and should be an allowable consequence, but the GM
Also has a responsibility to make sure that it feels like a fair consequence, and it sounds like the player doesn’t think it was (I will defer to the more tactical players here for whether that was fair or not. Sounds like it wasn’t?) and the GM doesn’t dispute that
To all those who pulled out that “this is a role play opportunity for the player, I would love that challenge”: great, you can play it then. Personally I think this is a great improv opportunity for the GM to figure out a way to make this work in his setting without rendering the character unfun to play for the player
The resolution was good but no revives doesn't necessarily mean a meat grinder, if they were down players they should have waited till they could be back. The DM could have inproved the situation a bit better but this should be a nice opportunity to make sure everyone knows the lay of the land. Also I find the assumption that you can always just keep your character with no risk of death rather entitled
I remember this DRAMA on Reddit. Both the DM and the Player on r/D&D asked AITAH on each of their own posts. I wonder what eventually happened...
If I was in your party I would have tried to find a cleric and ask them to try and revive you. Using the diamond in your heart. After all a heart so pure and worthy may have one. Right? I always try to find solutions that make everyone remember to keep the fun rolling. Because that’s what we are all going for.
I feel like the thing I'd change is joining the campaign in the first place. Premise sounds cool, but not coupled with, "btw, IDGAF about encounter balance" Meat grind if you want, but it's definitely not something I'd jump into.
for that kind of campaign, a folder of previous characters could be useful. doesnt have to be a evil creature that wants to lend out a hand to make a warlock. there is fey like the hag, celestials like the characters possible god, or even a curator of death that is curious on why they have so much more paperwork now.
I don’t know what if any foreshadowing there might have been leading up to the encounter.
Not all encounters should be balanced. If you walk into a wizard’s keep you mind find goblins have taken over the long abandoned structure. On the other hand you might a being of great power trapped in the dungeon that could wreak havoc the world or save it for the right price.
I personally know what it feels like to be blindsided by stacked encounters. The effort and care put into a well thought out character shouldn’t be overlooked.
The DM could make his soul have a meeting with an ethereal, incorporeal (Fathomless) being that would speak with him in an alien language that he could mystically understand, offering a bargain to bring him back though not fully and it may only revive him this once for there are rules and the power it can exert is limited. When he would ask for the catch, the entity would simply assure him not to worry and that he would certainly make it up to it and without betraying his God.
He could then come back as a Reborn and maybe, if he would survive through to the end of the campaign he could aquire kystical powers that would allow him to incarnate the powers of the Tempest and, maybe then or maybe later discover that he is not so different from that entity...if you catch my drift ;-)
Okay, I was wondering why level 1's and 2's were going up against a cr 3. Specifically a water wierd who is notably difficult to newer players. With the final explanation from the dm it makes sense. Glad they could come to a conclusion
Highest initiative!
Dm didn't co.pensate for the loss of two players when the temple came into play. The player is trying to find a compromise that he's comfortable with but the dm isn't budging. In this instance the dm is in the wrong considering the rest of the group confronted dm about the overpowered encounter trap. Edit, dm realized mistake and corrected. This is a good sign and clarified details. So with all information out there it's now on the players.
but then, when do we draw the line between the dm's fault and the player's fault? since only 1 of them died, and it was mostly due to bad rolls, if all of them were there, then the trap wouldn't have been such a problem. why did the players decided to continue as 4 instead of 6?
1 the dm shouldent of used that trap at level 2 to begin with. id be pissed if i got 1 shot with almost twice my hp hitting me and i didnt even get to roll any actions.
2 the player should have had a backup character and shouldent get to attached to a character as you can die in dnd.
Communication is key.
The DM set an interesting world and expressed it well. The player put together a very reasonable character with lots of love in it.
Sometimes, it's just a small bit of misunderstanding, even if you are forewarned "your beloved character might die, at you prepared for that?"
Even if we come to a circumstance like this, talking things out calmly helps a lot. If you got a deadly encounter you are willing to walk into it. Red flags should pop up around when something like this is shot to happen. "You need someone who's very high leveled to teleport you to the dangerous location" is an example of "you might be under leveled for this encounter" (my party did go into this encounter, we all lived thankfully)
I think the player is not wrong to be mad at this. His issue is not with the death, but with the way in which it happened.
It is dangerous for a DM to create a world in which ressurection is difficult and morally questionable and also make the world this dangerous. If you are to do that at all, you need to not only communicate that better but also give a fairly clear sign when something is really dangerous, maybe even just flat out clearly state that to the players (for example: "as you take of your armor, you have a really bad feeling about this").
Death is part of the game and contributes to the tension of it. It is what creates the emotional connection between the player and his character and DMs need to be very aware of this.
The DM's resolution was excellent
no it wasnt, the dm literally outed themself as terrible, they dont bother thinking and the resolution was the players idea.
For the dead character - why not have someone offer a diamond to resurrect in exchange for doing a job of some kind? It's not hard to make something up that will fit.
I've played enough video games to understand no revives means extreme difficulty and you done if you die
in my opinion meatgrinder campaigns should only be played when the entire table is interested or at least willing.
You don't ask for a resurrection in a case like this.
When the DM kills you with an encounter that has a too high challenge rating while also handicapping the party in several ways, you leave the game; It will just get worse from that point.
Option 4: Unrender the underwater session as some kind of a dream - due to it was the DM's mistake
Option 5 "Your has ended here" - says the player to the DM. It is allways an option vs tyrants
Call me old school, but I am with the DM on this one.
If the main shtick of the campaign is 'the resurrection is hard to come by', then any sensible player should avoid the risk of the character dying. Unless the team is completely new to the RPGs they should take this into account at a glance.
The described campaign is not linear. Nobody forced them to go into the temple. Nobody forced them to push through when some of the players had to leave and they lost support of additional characters. They took risks. Only one character died. That is a consequence of the choices they made.
I am totally for the dialogue and improving communication at the table. There could be some troubles there - but I do not hear it in either version of the story. Both show an understanding of the same principles.
D&D is a game of choice and consequence. Poor choices lead to bad consequences. If the players can't handle this and demand DM to undo such a situation, maybe this is not a game for them.
Some RPGs have 'rewind' mechanics, meta-mechanics to alter the narration or some 'Fate Points' to avoid death. There are some other make-believe means of entertainment. D&D is at heart a dungeon crawl game and the whole idea is that you can die while crawling through a dungeon!
Personally, I would give players a chance to get a diamond or two 'just in case' before moving to exploration of dangerous lands - or make it available in the dungeon. But that is just me. So I can see places where DM could improve, but I am far more concerned with the reaction of the player.
PS. I lost my character yesterday. I played her for almost twenty games sessions. She died protecting those, whom she loved. She could have survived, but she chose to take the bullet for the team. There is no resurrection in the game we played, she is gone. I am proud of her. I will miss her, but she died doing what she thought was right. She made a choice and suffered consequences.
I play RPGs for such moments.
I feel like a middle ground like this time they get lucky next NPC bandit they kill happens to have a diamond heart
Making it easy this 1 time because of the unbalanced encounter while staying true to the narrative
Have I missed something in 5th edition, since I haven't played since 4th edition, where a 2nd level character or party could afford to resurrect somebody?
As a dm i would have gone with the warlock pack BEING OFFERED and when character rejects it a set number of times i then would have had his god reward him with Resurrection for holding fast to the tenants of his faith. That way you get alot more rp, the character gets to show who he truely is and you can have the one that offered the pack now hunt the party trying to corrupt one of them.
Running a group of players through a potential TPK scenario at the very beginning of your campaign is massively counterproductive
DM did not provide any clear evidence of my characters ressurection, forcing me to cause Chaos just to get what I want. He kept refusing to communicate with me directly, restoring my memories about my shadow demon phoenix dragon goat character, memories about past lives, memories from outside the game, NOT EVEN AN option to leave the game, trapping me in it. Basically I was imprisoned by the DM without memories of who I am and why I am no longer an eternal dragon god that I was supposed to be.
I agree with the dm. Honestly in my game the spells that reincarnate or revive someone completely is done through a scroll that the players must buy and it is enscribed by priests.
DM: "There is no diamonds that are easy to come by in this world." - So permanent death IS a thing that can happen.
Player: "Let's go into a sunken temple at an early level, without the full party - without doing any recon or anything - and dive underwater!" - Dies
Player: "DM revive me! I died because of my own stupid choices"
DM: "No. But here are two options for you..."
Player: "But I don't want to face the consequences of my actions!"
DM: "Then stay dead"
Player: Surprised Pikachu face
All the games my 10+ year group run, regardless of which of us is DMing, restrict resurrection type magic in some way or another because it doesn't feel powerful or special if it's easy to access from lvl 5 and onward. That being said, players in the low level tend to die sometimes. We run difficult encounters and not everyone can always make it through. There aren't any hard feelings and most of us view it as an opportunity to make something new or to fill a role gap within the party.
Maybe the DM could have nerfed the Water Wierd's damage a little bit, or had it attack someone other than the one healer, these are just a couple of what ifs, but I don't think the DM was being unfair here. Levels 1-3 are when a character is most likely to die without chance of revival, that's just how it is.
CR3 isn't bad, it's a deadly encounter for level 2. Combining it with a trap makes it near impossible. If the DM feels he didn't communicate how deadly their world is. Who am I to argue...
The party was given ample passive warnings. Take off all your equipment/Armor and requiring a specific resource of the party is a big warning sign for the party, they will enter unequipped and any encounter will become more difficult. However, the Dm did make a mistake in simply deciding to continue the game when 2 people left. The Dm should have adjusted the difficulty for the party, either make the water creature a bit injured due to some BS like the connection of this destroyed temple is fluctuating or something else.
Its a bit of fault on both parties Id say.
DM is 100% wrong on this one. Not only was that encounter bullshit but he basically told him by the time you get resed you might as well not play him. He then very easily came up with a solution that fit the world and the charater. I probably wouldn't play at his table
Extremely deadly encounter lol
Also, the world was made to be unable to revive.
#1 you knew there was no revival
#2 the DM should've painted a better picture OR adjusted the fight on the fly; e.g. could make the serpent use it's 2nd attack on another player or lower the damage output
If the players knew the DMs play style of making encounters that might not be balanced then the player was entirely unreasonable. He knew death was a risk, and just couldn't be emotionally mature enough to handle the potential consequences.
On the one hand the DM should've balanced the encounters better given how hard it is to revive people (or told the players to have backups), especially since the party agreed it wasn't a fair fight and it sounds like it's set up for a lot of deaths if the encounters are unbalanced for "narrative reasons." On the other hand that player sounds kind of entitled with the whole "I'm gonna give the DM an ultimatum to get my character revived or I'll quit." At least they _sorta_ "resolved" their drama, but honestly if i were the DM and they did that I'd probably be like "Okay if you want to leave then go ahead, I gave you options." The devil deal could've been a good character arc in trying to find ways to break it tbh
The DM was in the wrong. Clear communication is crucial and the DM rolled a nat 1 on it.
The player is being difficult, I'd have them removed from the table as they can't deal with losing a character in a D&D game.
The world doesn't scale around the players, it's the players responsibility to make the right choices and deal with the consequences.
I don't think the GM's the asshole, but then again neither is the player. Both are in the right, but the player should not make an ultimatum.
there's a diamond in the dead player
Problem solved
Maybe when revived there becomes another diamond in him, could lead to some interesting plothooks but you would have to make sure they cant just revive him again with the same diamond thingy
Badly designed? Pretty sure the purpose and design of traps is to delay and/or kill its victims... pretty sure it accomplished that task nicelyl.
exactly
Sounds like it was more of a balancing issue.
The setting sounds homebrew.
The Dm shouldve known more or less what the party van handle and made encounters accordingly.
When you have players leaving, and you stripped the party of equipement.
Its shouldnt be a surprise that the challenge you posed for a larger, fully equiped group turns deadly.
I do blame the dm for not stepping in and stopping the session early since you lack party members.
Or nerfing the encounter accordingly.
Is your responsibility as a dm things stay fair. (Unless you have a group of players that likes hardcore gameplay)
But yes, the player should be open for sollutions.
Resseruction through a pact and, after getting out of it to try and find redemption in the yes of your god, sounds like an amazing story line.
"Its what my character would do" doesnt help in a coöperative storytelling game.
You're a team. Both you, your party, and your dm. With the goal to have fun.
Player sounds like a drag to be around.
Ok, on the one hand, yeah that was not ballanced trap+ higher CR monster is quite dangerous. If half your party leaves, scale it back (it was wounded/weaker/immature) or delay. Also there's nothing wrong with owning a mistake and "cough cough", oh he was juat MOSTLY dead.
But on the other, the point if the campaign arc is that death is quite devastating and you cant juat junp back from it. It shoukd be clear to the players that "look, you could die. Come with a few fallback ideas". Heck, most players i know have a backlog of rolled up chars that have never and may never see the light of day. Loosing your first character is tough, but it is part of the game. Ad sounds like the player is just not willing to accept that? Idk both could have done this better imho
The DM was 10000% right. Not all encounters have to be balanced. If a lv2 party happens to enter a dragon nest, should the dragon be half dead just for the shake of balancing? No!
This DM's goal is to defeat the characters. Like it was a game of Players vs DM. So sad.
I don’t agree with XP only being awarded via role play. However, I have never played a game where exploration wasn’t a meat grinder. lotFP is a perfect example of this.
Not all encounters are balanced. Not all fights are winable. Death happens. Some campaigns more than others. It is part of the game before you begin, It is fair.
A fight an encounter a trap whatever should always be winnable deadly sure but entirely unwinnable no
@@dragontrainerzero sometimes you need to run.
@@wanndanneisenbahn this is true, but as long as running remains an option, in this case it really wasn't not without a player dying due to bs, if they had been able to scamper without being forced to solve a puzzle that was horribly unbalanced, then yes scampering is an option and I, for one, consider that a win because nobody died, and the party can always go level up and come back to try again if they want. Anytime a player, or in this case players, are not having fun the game is a loss and the DM needs to reevaluate the way they are doing things. I've had characters die due to everything from bad rolls, to poor choices, to overwhelming odds and I didn't have a problem with it cause I was having fun, as was my party, but when a player dies WHILE feeling helpless, there is no fun to be found and the DM needs to figure something out. The game this guy was running sounds like it was an open world kind of thing where the players could do whatever, but he needs to let the players know through either in game hints or blatant DM to Player, that they may be entering an area that is potentially too difficult for them.
@@wanndanneisenbahnand they couldn't, because they're in a whirlpool. Additionally, if a DM can't adequately communicate that an encounter is too dangerous for the party, then they're a shit storyteller. If the DM doesn't imply that the monster is beyond the party's capabilities, then the players are perfectly within reason to expect the encounter to be winnable.
@danielhounshell2526 different generations i guess. Our table knows better. Encounters never have to be winable. Sometimes, it's just a bad situation. Characters die. It happens. No risk dying, then there is no real reward to leveling. You might as well play a video game.
Did the dm seriously have them gain xp through roleplay only?!
That's a sign he/she should run a LARP instead LOL
DM's in the wrong for creating such a clearly unbalanced encounter.
They're in charge, so could have made it easy to ressurect the character
They were both assholes, the player just had justification. As a GM unless an encounter is meant to be unbeatable via combat it will always be adjusted to the party and their level. (Example: the guards of a capital city, royal guards of a major kingdom, etc. In my settings these usually have acaptain with class levels and atleast 15 of them. )
DM was too limited in skill & flexibility to demand the player do things their way.
DM is bad at their role, & the Player is totally justified in walking away.
Encounter balance is the DM’s literal job.
Both are in the wrong the DM definition needed to roll back the challenge, and the player got way to invested in his character.
Yep. From online sources (aka Me googling it and seeing a DND beyond result) a CR 3 creature should require the strength of 4 level 3 characters on average, while 2 of the PCs were even level 2.
The player seems unfun and has too high expectations. They want want want.
The player sounds unfun, you’re writing a story with other people. Death is a risk.
Obviously but DM seems to have a very "vs player" mentality from the explanation and how that encounter was set up
I mean.. I love all my characters, and invest a lot of time and thought into each of them. But death is part of life. All stories eventually end there, be it at the table, in the afterward, or whatever. If any of them dies, they die. And then I can finally pull one of these backlog ideas out and actually play it!
Or.... Maybe I can roll up this other idea I just had.. hmm, let's see where this one goes...
It’s not that ridiculous to feel unsatisfied when a character you were hoping to play abruptly dies without even reaching level 2. Asking the DM for another shot doesn’t exactly ruin the fun of everyone else, either.
@@shrekatemyonions it ruins the story. What if every movie or show you watch can be changed and altered every time a fan isn’t satisfied. We would never have a finished show or movie. And if you give one character everyone else in the group will want the same thing especially if you tell everyone death sticks then turn around and retcon deaths
@@rockdalianninja1056 A dynamic collaborative experience between a group of friends isn’t the same as a static story written for thousands of people to consume. People play DND to have fun together, so it’s not some sin for a person to want to try and work things out when they *aren’t* having fun, or want to retire from the group if it *can’t* be worked out. Taking steps to balance collective enjoyment and individual enjoyment is a fundamental requirement to ensure each and every person can have fun.
The DM here wasn’t wrong for asserting their rights, but neither was the player. The compromise they came to in the end obviously doesn’t ruin the game because it lets the DM clarify their intentions for everyone to understand, set clear boundaries regarding player death moving forward, and provide in-game content for the party to deal with the consequences without needing to derail the campaign for several sessions. This serves to the narrative’s active benefit, and provides a lesson to the party to be more cautious in the future.
And it’s not like the party is stupid. If they hear the DM say they’ll allow it once but not in the future, nobody would expect to be given the same thing. Once everyone is on the same page, they can understand how to play and temper their expectations to have fun. Because, again, everything in DND is meant to be dynamic.
Come on listen to the player
Honestly the only thing that was wrong was that the players went into a underwater dungeon at level one and two. Which idiot decided to be good idea to go into a place with where underwater combat might be possible in a world where revival is very difficult
i saw the clickbait of this video and i was bored so i made my way in, but then the video made me curious about something that i hadn't realized until now............
Why the hell can't lawful neutral deities make indenture pacts like devils do? I do understand that a good character wouldn't generally want to fall into a contract even with a neutral party that would force them to do evil somewhere down the line, but that's not what I'm asking.
Lawful Good or Neutral Good deities wouldn't be caught dead making a contract like a devil does because the good part of the equation means they are morally and ethically obliged to not force someone into indenture where their own personal morals might be brought to question, this isn't a labor contract where someone is forced to meet a production deadline, its a contract where someone will possibly if not definitely, in the end, go against their own personal morals, so a Good PC or deity wouldn't force someone into a contract like that, even if the contents of the contract were good, because if the morals of the person signing the contract change, the person is obliged to go against their morals, and nobody being Good aligned forces choices or decisions on others, it just doesn't work that way, paladins resolve conflict and fight injustice, they don't enforce their morals like despots or tyrants.
But that doesn't apply to Lawful Neutral, or True Neutral...................................
*So where the F***K are our divine contracts?* Where the hell are the "Go kill Black Adam/Jason Todd/Punisher/Cat Woman, they are being a nuisance" contracts, where the party doesn't know who the hell they are and then when they find out they are completely wrecked inside about being forced to kill an anti-hero or a potential hero that is just not vanilla.
I mean come on, Book of Job anyone?
Killing party members at level three is a trash DM move, for starters. By the way, who the fuck needs diamond,when spare the dying is a cantrip. XP leveling is just for people who hate having fun. These guys did Xp leveling in a exploration campaign so they didn’t have a shot.
Solution is pretty simple, the character is a good person so they'd have a diamond, also that dm is terrible, they put no thought into the encounters and shouldn't be dmng if what they really want to do is write a book.
The players shouldn't have to deal with random bs just because the guy was to lazy to put in any actual thought and he really shouldn't be the dm if hes going to be that poor of one.
I called this even before we got the player's side. "Only devils can bring people back, not gods" and all that other stuff about fitting the world was DM's excuses for just forcing their own idea of what's cool on the player. Most of the context about the encounter itself that led to the death was conveniently swept under the rug. People in the comments both times I saw this story on other channels claimed the player must be salty without critically thinking about the actual situation. It would do people some good to ask "why" sometimes instead of taking everything at face value.
While death is a possibility and a real consequence to adventuring and all of that, if the GM is being a little bitch with the difficulty of the encounters, I too would find it hard to get attached and in character if I know the GM will kill that character on a whim because he can't balance for shit.
And seeing the GM's options, honestly I would've just left and joined any other game. I'd rather have no DnD over bad DnD.
Some of these homebrew worlds sound so lackluster. A world where diamonds randomly disappeared? And now people's hearts turn into diamonds? OK....
Tomb of Anahilation did it better. This is why I like Forgotten Realms. It feels like a real world, our real world, but amped up on magic steroids. Every time I hear of a homebrew setting involving "4-8 Kingdoms all vying for power..." I cringe a little bit. What a very small world. Toril is so huge that there are continents that barely have a few books written about them. It's expansive and feels almost infinite. I suppose some like being big fish in small ponds. I like being a big fish in an multidimensional universe pond.
It's functionally impossible for a DM to write a world that large while still having a life. Even if they did, 99% of that would go unexplored because they aren't running a major company that makes several campaigns in that world on a regular basis. For a single game or a single story, a small world is a better choice. It's a lot better to have 4-6 well developed nations than it is to have 100 nations that have little more than a paragraph to their story. This is a pitfall a lot of new writers run into, trying to go too big with scope and ending up with a world that has no real depth.
Although I do agree that the diamond concept is dumb.
@danielhounshell2526 Have you read FFR lore? It's more complicated than a paragraph about a few nations. The nation of Amn has more lore and background than any of these "small worlds" Kingdoms combined. When I think of "4-8 Kingdoms vying for power" I think JRPG Final Fantasy and whatnot. Maybe instead of watching so much anime, these people could pick up a FFR book, read it, and build on existing lore in their game.
I'm currently making a module centered around the Shaar/Border Kingdoms region. It's one of those places that is known but not a super amount has been written about it when you compare it to Sword Coast cities like Baldursgate.
I don't play in small world, don't run in small worlds, and I actually have respect for the setting/lore my game was created under. I'm not that DM that doesn't know there's a difference between Devils and Demons and just lumps them all together because I didn't bother to read my source material. I actually do my homework.
@@007ohboy sure, you like the Forgotten Realms setting, but it's not everyone's preference. For example, I don't personally like the way magic is handled in that setting, and the reason gods can't intervene in the world feels a little half baked. The forgotten realms can only afford to be as expansive as it is because it has dozens of writers producing content for it on a regular basis as their job, all under the same setting. Most novels can't even handle that level of scope creep. Also even in the forgotten realms there's plenty of places that have had little to no real exploration from the writers.
Again, expecting one person writing a single campaign to create dozens or hundreds of nations for a single story is nonsense. Again, most of that content won't even be touched by the players. The only reason it works in forgotten realms is that WotC can fill in the gaps with new stories and modules basically whenever they want, and they can put out dozens of campaigns to explore other areas of the world.
This is impractical at best if you're only writing one campaign, again, in that scenario, it is best to substantially narrow the focus of your story, instead of writing a hundred nations that you as one person cannot possibly flesh out, write five or six with expansive histories and cultures. Depth is more important than breadth when it comes to writing.
I play mostly Pathfinder, and I do quite enjoy the world they made for it, but I don't play it in my games. If you're not running a module it's very limiting to try to mold your story into someone else's work, in a way that really isn't very fun for a lot of players and DMs.
Besides, just because one world is well crafted doesn't mean that there is no value in creating and exploring others.
GM is NTA.
Players knew the situation. Players knew the risks of exploring a sunken temple, a side quest while gathering herbs. Players pushed on, anyway. That's on the players.
Extra comment.
Yes dm, punish your player because you messed up yourself. And act like you graciously conceded to some unreasonable request.
Your homebrew world isnt holy.
You made a mistake as a DM and refuse to own up to it.
Theres a reason D&D has a build up system.
If your players dont get enough hints about how dangerous an encounter is.
How the f should they know where the "more dangerous than you can handle" spots are?
They cant smell a combat encounter rating.
Sorry but the players is just wrong. They new death was nearly impossible to reverse. And the DMs encounter should not have been hard for 4 level 1 characters, and he let the rest of the group out easy. Not to mention the party normally has 6 so that is what the encounter was made for. Even with all this the DM was willing to give the character a believable way back, the devil idea would have led to a great story of a good person force to do bad things to survive. And with the way the DM is described he probably would have give the player vary noble ways of paying the price.
Level 1 or 2 character are super easy to make.
I am glade that they both talked about it but seriously this DM is way to nice he has 5 other players and he seems to go the extra mile for them all.
Take responsibility for your own character if they die it is a new beginning
Not going to lie, the player is just whining.
So, don’t play D&D if you have issues creating a new character… Or at least be at a table where the DM has explicitly said your not going to die.
FR if you can’t see yourself having fun with any other character you are doing it wrong. It’s not a video game, something’s the best most fulfilling thing is an epic death!
Yeah, y’all can say what you want about the player, but during the water weird at level one is unforgivable and is the reason why we have people who play for one session then quit the game for good. This is just another case of some sort of megalomaniac wanting to feel more powerful than the fantasy players at his table. and for all you resurrection hating, diamond despising,?DM’s out there… spare the dying is a bitch😂
You should never get invested in a character unless you know they're going to be in a low stake game. One where resurrection is easy and affordable. Otherwise, just play gag characters or do what i do and just use the exact same character sheet with a different name. Major boo to the level system the dm was using too.
I suggest keeping in mind roleplaying is a game. Losing a character sucks. Being unable to separate your overall happiness from the outcome of a game is a dangerous sign that you have real world issues and should seek help. Remember not everyone has a high degree of capability to maintain that each player is an actor in a play. Do actors in movies cry like children when their character gets killed off in a movie? Probably happens but I bet it’s pretty rare. Be able to maintain the separation from your character. Work with the D.M. And have the conversation to discuss that the roleplaying aspect is less important or more important than the kill and loot scenarios. The D.M. Should work with the players to create engaging scenarios for all types of play styles.
Not all players will mesh with all D.M.’s. Find a group that you mesh with and play to have fun and spend time engaging with your fellow gamers. Try being less concerned with your own selfish desires and work towards party unity.
In the case of a character death, I agree it sucks, but temper that loss with the aspect of a new challenge.
Above everything remember some people simply are not meant to play roleplaying games, just like not everyone can be a great actor.
The players were informed resurrections were going to be rare and went adventuring without armor why? Just because a dm sets a path befor you, its your choice to blindly follow it. A world with no rez would make most players double down on caution.
So the DM didn't explain how he wanted to run the game to his players, gave them a trap that was far above their capabilities, and even after discussion with others ultimately ended up punishing the cleric player by giving them a resurrection that goes against their alignment (good character helping complete an evil Hag coven). All around terrible showing from the DM and the player should have just walked away at that point.
PC is a whine ass, if he lived threw it he wouldn't be whining but since he didn't he whines that it was to hard...
You knew the rules, you pushed forward without your whole party, you were the only healer, you failed your death rolls, they sound like a newish player to make poor decisions and good dice rolls vs bad and you died, that's the game.
As a DM/ST/LM I am rather strict with unalive characters. Once unalive it is always tremendously difficult to resurrect the character.
Granted I run primarily CoC TT these days but I did the same in my V:TM and D&D games.
TBH the DM in the story is terrible regardless.
The idea of not having time to roll a character is pretty wild. Also like... You enter a campaign knowing it's gonna be difficult and ressurection isn't really an option and then get mad? The player is being pretty childish, but.... It's a game.
Sounds balanced. One good roll and someone could have went to him to stablize him. Thats 3 other characters in 3 rounds. So a total of 9 failed rolls to get to him.
Not to mention the party failed a check for the trap too.
By the fact it didnt kill every other player in that time. It was fair and just bad luck.
Going real, the party took a crazy chance getting jnto unknown water with no armor etc.
Yea. I love the realism of shit happened.
I think this is a good story of misunderstood communication that kinda falls on both parties, but am glad the player is getting their character back.
Part of why I do feel the players have a level of responsibility here is that, if death and the lack of resurrection is a major thematic element, FEAR of death and the mechanical ways it's going to show up should be more expected.
It's kinda like booting up Dark Souls and seeing all the story elements, all the rules around death and saving, resource management, stamina limitations, ALLLL of that and then being surprised when the fights aren't like Devil May Cry.
BUT, since it wasn't communicated EXPLICITLY, the GM should still work with the players and lay out where the expectations should be. And part of that, if they're using level 1 characters and XP is "don't get TOO attached. Characters WILL die, and that's just a reality you have to be prepared to deal with."
I struggle role-playing. I try but I have to feeling good. I'd hate to have xp nerfed because.
Why not play another character and do the quest to revive the dwarf? It could be someone what worships same God. No?