I Killed A PC And They Got All Salty Over It, But How Am I Even Wrong? | Narrated D&D Story
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- Find your next adventure here: www.kickstarte...
Submit your D&D story here: / allthingsdnd
Join our Discord: / discord
Follow us on Twitter: / allthingsdnd
Credits
Story Source ( / ):
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
As an autistic person, yes I'd get not understanding certain hints but at this point, the several DM "are you sure" and the enemy captain OUTRIGHT TELLING EVERYONE that they wouldn't let them get away.
An NPC yelling, "Nobody's getting away!" is often a challenge/invitation to start a battle, organize a revolt, search for clues to escape, thousands of examples, really.
It's more of a "call to action", than anything else.
Agreed; by that point the player was just making lame excuses, regardless of whether it's true or not.
As an autistic person myself I ensure that at my table the players understand actions have consequences. I allow for retcons to some extent so they can choose to change their minds. I GM for children who are neuro-divergent as well, I can see why she acted this way but also I can see why the OP acted this way as well. All I can say is the only thing I would have changed is make that final death scene a vision and allow the player to see where they went wrong, then before the top of the round after they go down ask them if that's really what they want. If not then step back to the beginning of their turn and see what they want to do from there. But a quick PSA to all GMs that have an Autistic person at your table, understand our ability to read social cues can literally change every 5 mins, keep this in mind as you plan your dming style.
With the first story:
Considering the D&D is a social interaction game.
If you have trouble with social cues, then you should let everyone know this.
But the fact is, she waited, until after her character was killed to complain.
And then tried to use it as a means to force the DM to change the rules, as if he should’ve already known she had trouble with social cues.
It’s very aggravating when people try to use a disability like a crutch. Especially when it’s only really brought out in ways that force others to cater to them after the fact.
Agreed
Counterpoint, because people often treat neuroatypical people as lesser, talk down to them, or might even just outright refuse them based solely on "well, it's a social game and you said you have trouble with social cues, this may not be the best fit for you" reasoning without bothering to give them a chance or asking the person how they might be accommodated, I can understand why she'd wait until after there was a problem to say anything. Just because someone waits doesn't mean they're using it as a "crutch" or that they're holding it as a secret weapon to "force others" into anything.
People aren't obligated to tell everyone else all of their personal details, especially not when some of those details often get you treated poorly.
She reacted badly, this is certain, but the DM completely axing the entire group after this one bad interaction? Why not talk about how that comes across? Certainly seems like when they were challenged on something, they just top-down decided *no one* gets to have any fun.
And because everything can be an opportunity to get better, that DM could easily have just followed up the Enemy RP of "finish the job properly, no one escapes!" with a statement that the enemy are other people, they just saw a the warlock get magically healed and pulled back from the brink of death, and will now opt to immediately finish off any downed party member rather than leave a defeated foe lying on the ground. This is something *my* DM does for my group and it removes the ambiguity in combat.
@@TransientWitch while I completely agree with everything you said.
There is the fact that she tried to use that she couldn’t understand social cues very well to force him to make an exception to one of his key rules in the game.
(no resurrections)
And as for shutting down the whole campaign. I would completely agree with you that he took it a little too far.
If not, for the fact that these D&D horror stories are chock-full of people, who, after one bad experience, completely shut down their campaigns.
Not because they’re being petty, but because one there enjoyment of the game has now been tainted.
Two, how do you just keep on playing after something like that if the whole situation has become awkward, because of the falling out?
I’ll also say this, that there’s most likely more to the story that we don’t know. And even the writer may not know.
And what you said about the villains attacking characters have been down or going after the healers instead .
He may very well have decided to do the same thing from then on in future games.
I call it a ‘Estes counter’ because in a lot of recent fromsoft’s games, the bosses will purposely charge at you when you try to use your healing items to try and stop you.
Edit: I also forgot to mention something very important about myself.
I also have a couple of learning disabilities. They’re not major, but if I think they’re going to be an issue, I let people know.
@Sielith I don't disagree, but if these people would have refused her over her disability then the group was probably not worth playing with anyway. As the saying goes, "No DnD is better than bad DnD."
As for me, I always tell a new GM my quirks because I don't want to be a hindrance to everyone else fun.
It wasn't even missing social cues, it was outright stated that the enemies would be confirming kills!
“The bad guy threatens to finish them off as they go down because they have a healer” is not a hint. It’s outright telling them they’re going to die if they continue to stand where they are. Then blaming autism is just them dodging their fault, and trying to play the victim. The part where she gets angry and says “now you’re blaming me” well… yeah, because you control your character and the consequences were clearly laid out.
true. the actual hint was the "are you sure?"
that line was the equivalent of text on the screen suddenly appearing with the word "RUN!"
I agree they should’ve known they would probably die if they stayed there but I am still trying to figure out what I would’ve done to get out of the situation. I have 3HP with two fighters next to me so if I move, I get hit and probably die or I stand and fight and probably die. Unless the warlock had a missed the step like spell, they were screwed either way. Disengage action and then a movement? I didn’t hear what system they were playing in to be sure that’s actually a thing.
@@shosroySurrender? Stay down? Take the disengage action?
@@shosroy She could have disengaged OR taken a full defensive stance adding 2 to her AC but she wouldn't have had the option to attack as either is an action. Although, as a GM myself, if I'm not allowing Resurrections, I prewarn my players that 1 or more of them will die and to be prepared for it by making 2 different characters at the start of the campaign.
In the first scenario, that is what happens when you don't play as a group and don't want to take hints by the DM. In the second one, that is a great way to take care of a problem player and good thing the player changed the play style.
Agree, but in the first scenario, i don't even know why hexblade charge in? Dnd is notorious of ranged advantage and crowd control, maybe she was really autistic. Better make hexblade 2 and 18 sorc, and play a real character...
@@Nemiroffthebest I mean, it depend how you roleplay? Not always trying to optimise everything is also very fun, having actual flaws for your characters is also increadibly fun when you roleplay with them. Having a hot-headed character in a group than make situation more intense, make combat more interesting and whole session more entertaining. The thing is, you have to understand your actions will have concequences, something the hexblade in the first story clearly didn't. The "you can't kill my character without my consent" is the epitome of intitlement after all, she gave her consent when she joined the game.
@@rebaxbayushi577 Well yeah, im always optimize and play careful because my games have hard fights. But i dont cry about dead character when i rush forward with scream Leeeeeeeeeeeerooooooy Jenkins. This game is bad for moves like this, and even worse if your character not optimized. I can only speak for myself, but i hate players that always rush in, die and then blame team or GM.
I don't think the first game should have ended. Keep playing without that annoying and disrespectful chick
@@LoreFoundry yeah. that is the one issue I saw. fully stoping the game without trying to talk to everyone else.
but, we do not know how those messages went, or for how long.
so maybe it was justified
6:15 The described DM is actually a good DM. By now, the DM "are you sure?" is a well-known warning and even if it wasn't "don't split the party" is the most well-known mantra in D&D. This player made a bad decision, ignored a warning that she was making a bad decision, then claimed autism to try to dodge the consequences. Sometimes you don't know a player is an asshole until you pit pressure on them, and this player losing a character was the pressure required to reveal her true self.
To the second story, I enjoyed the DM punishing the problem player with the principle of "be careful what you wish for, you might get it."
The first story had the DM give clear and repeated warnings. A DM saying "Are you sure" repeatedly is the train siren on the railroad tracks; you either get out of the way or get crushed.
The second story was an excellent way to handle the problem player. OP tried to reason with them, it didn't take, so gave them what they wanted with a twist. While it can seem dickish, said player learned from the experience and became a better person and player from it, so it worked out great.
The last story, the problem player had a whole character arc in game and irl. i love it
Okay for the first story, I'm autistic myself (high functioning) and I still picked up on the fact that the suicide attack was a bad idea.
I'm at a table with multiple folks on the spectrum and they all pick up on the big cues faster than most, even the one who specifically has trouble with cues
(The smaller ones may or may not slip past)
Last night one of our players, the rogue, got outright KILLED because A) they failed the Dex save and B) the damage the DM rolled was EXACTLY DOUBLE THEIR HEALTH 😅 (they had very low health 😞). We were all like.....well shit 😢😮. My character, warforged Cleric, took some of the body for our resident uhhh necromancer 😅 and is trying to communicate with his diety for help. Nat 20 on religion for 28 plus 4 on guidance for 32 total. We eneded the session there we are going to pick it up next week to see what happens.
Sounds like potentially a Reborn in the making
@@Albertosn3 who knows! I'm excited for this coming session haha.
I am now very interested with how this turns out, commenting in hopes that I get notified with an update!
@@fionablah8033 I promise to let you know what happens
SO UPDATE! My deity gave me the rogues soul in a soul gem and I am currently forging a new body for her with the help of our Kenku bard and some old ass automaton scouts we found in some old ruins a handful of sessions ago.
In the first story, the GM was in the Right. The player heard all the rules of the game and agreed to them. The fact that they still expected the game to be a power fantasy is their own fault, and they are the ones at fault.
The second story is exactly how the GM should've handled the situation. I'm surprised the player didn't just leave, but sometimes people learn and grow.
The 1st DM was 100% right *in game* but the way he handled the out of fame followup conversations was downright shameful. Dismisses his other players concerns, insults them, the cuts ties with everyone.
That's not Good DM behavior...
@@remyb6854 Rewatch the video. The DM did not insult the player, the player was insulting HIM after he explained to her why she went down, and would not be rezzed. Which was then followed by said player going to the rest of the group after she was banned telling them who knows what which resulted in them splitting up, one half apologizing on her behalf, recognizing thusly she was in the wrong, with the other half white-knighting her, and possibly, insulting the DM based on how white-knighters usually act. That is when he ended the session entirely.
Using autism as an excuse like that is harmful to the rest of us.
First story reminds me of a player in my group, who made a highly specialized combat maneuver build. It was very effective and impressive, could even trip enemies at range. Unfortunately when we happened to fight a lot of large or flying creatures in a row, they acted quite put out and thought the DM was picking on them, making them ineffective. They needed to understand that's the double edge of a one trick pony, being almost useless outside their specific trick.
"but all I have is this hammer!"
yeah, same goes for all melee characters since a lot of monsters stop them from playing the game
First story you were clear, several are you sures, even stating that you'll finish her next turn and yet she still stood there. That's on her, you are in the right.
I have admittedly, in the moment, tried to negotiate with DM on negative consequences. And there can be real grief in losing a character. But that is the game. I am ND, and so I will ask questions and make sure I understand. I've known my DMs personally, but even without that, most DMs I am aware of are happy to clarify things. Or I will accept their vagueness (often with some sarcasm, but that is the personality of the table).
Its all respect. Its a very different thing to ask "can I..." and be upset than to send an angry essay with demands as the person in the story does.
Honestly, I support the DM's decision entirely... gave the Hexblade several chances, honestly more than I would have given, so I think they're nice.
That first story reminded me of a player we used to have in our group. He would often use his being autistic as an excuse for being an asshole and having a superiority complex. We played pathfinder and he often tried to cheat or break rules
"We are not you doctor, if playing with you make us discomfort why should we do it?". If it dont help ban he.
@marknezanuto oh he's gone
We banished him a while ago
It's hard to realize that people can be autistic or on the spectrum and still be assholes. And sometimes it has nothing to do with their autism.
Playing dark fantasy => "my character can not die, how dear you".
You killed a PC? Dude! Do you have any idea how expensive graphic cards have become?!
5:43 I mean, you did just blame her. It is right to blame her, but she was right in saying you are blaming her.
Sometimes bad things happen to players that roll poorly.
Worse when it’s consistent.
@@Samuraiedge2 Happened to me a few weeks ago,but is probably revived by an NPC. We haven't gotten word yet.
It's the choices that lead to the roll that matter. ..
@@greanstreak04 Maybe so
as someone on the spectrum I gotta say the person on the first story who ignored several 'are you sure about that?'s seems like the one in the wrong
Not a bad DM, she got a bit confident in her character and the DM did give a warning but ended up rolling poorly, it happens in RP.
3:47 upvote earned
As a member of the jury, I would say that you are not a bad dm for killing the character. It was the right move and you were more than fair about it. I'd say its quite possible that the conversations afterwards were handled poorly, but without being there it is difficult to give advice on what to do better. So, the only thing I can really offer you is a vague and difficult to apply tip; when dm'img, try to rely more on respect than authority. Its a game played with friends, so in this case it is always better to be loved than feared.
Story 1: OP is NTA, since it sounds like they laid out everything early on, gave plenty of hints and followed through on their explicit threats. There wasn't anything else they could have done to stop a character with a death wish that didn't involve pulling their punches. Take it from me, when you tell your players there's a real possibility of death and then puss out, it is unsatisfying for EVERYONE involved. I should have been much more punishing in COS, I think...
Story 2: Sounds like everything worked out great! Glad to hear the problem player actually worked with their new limitations and grew as a player instead of throwing a tantrum and rage-quitting. True Paladin Redemption story right there.
Counterpoint: After the game, DM in story 1 was TA. He could have handled the situation considerably better, and really couldn't have done any worse. Insults all his players, dismisses their opinions or concerns, and then nukes his group entirely and cuts ties with the lot of them?
Sorry, no, he's TA.
Whenever one of my players wants to do something stupid, I always say "ARE YOU REALLY SURE ABOUT THIS?" I don't give them any roleplaying hints, but I tell them straight up that what they're going to do is stupid, any consequences their actions may have are 100% their fault, and I'm glad they understand that.
Imo since the DM was upfront about it, this was fair game
Can not kill a PC without their permission? LOL! They might want to play a game that follows those rules.
I always get nervous about telling people about my autism because of stories like this. I get worried people will just accuse me of using it as an excuse to “justify” doing something wrong.
I can understand that it can be difficult to tell someone your different in and of itself especially when it's not obvious you need accommodations. I think telling before not after helps though. It's probably not a bad idea to have some concrete examples of what you might need to. But it's still not easy. Some times I wish I had a wheelchair so it was more obvious what I can and can't do but on the other hand it can be nice to just melt in to.
If anything, I think this is an example of why it’s good to explain things like this from the start. If the player had told the DM about their autism, the DM would have known to explain their intentions more clearly and been able to prevent miscommunications like this. For example, during the encounter the DM might have known to be more direct and explicit with their warnings, stating that the enemies were very dangerous and the players needed to be careful. On the other hand, I can see why someone would be disinclined to talk about it.
As a DM who has done the "smart enemy" tactic... Yes, you were wrong, and no you weren't... It's a minefield, simply put.
My best example of it being pulled off "correctly"' is to have two equally leveled opponents to the party, or one overpowered opponent, with multiple mooks around them who are a few levels below the party. They still coordinate as a team, but their attacks don't hit "as hard" as the party can.
The PCs still feel the heat, but have several more rounds to realize the stakes of their bullheaded blunders and can regroup in the middle of the battle
I've told my players that I'll never say "Are you sure?" These guys are veterans. They know that their PC's can die.
That's something I would struggle to do as I am used to players who are always less knowledgeable than me and/or new so warning them is always a good idea. But for veterans that sounds like it would be really cool to just do stuff and have to then deal with consequences you couldn't just nevermind your way out of.
My DM friend told me that he ones discreetly started playing suicide is painless when the party made an especially bad decision. Not everyone picked up the clue thought.
Wow. That first story reminded me of a player who has since left out table. It’s very much a “death by a thousand cuts” story, with the player essentially doing a lot of small shitty things, not all of which I was aware of at the time, and then when called out on it pulled the Autism Card as an excuse while apologizing before immediately going back to what they were doing before. This went on for months, and there are a lot of details I’m leaving out, but this player eventually left our group for feeling targeted by various members of the group, although maintained contact with some of us until recently [edit: when the rest of us pulled away hard the moment we realized the extent of what this player had said and done]. The player blocked everyone from the original group, and honestly, I’m happy they did it for me and I’m glad it’s over now.
When I ran ALIEN RPG, a game system that kills players like it is going out of style, I had the party own a spaceship and all the staff members of said ship, which they made in Game Zero, were back up characters. I pointed out over a dozen times that they would need these back ups before the campaign was over. They were well aware death was a possibility.
I'm with you on this. It's a fare pc death. I had a player that said, because he was 10yrs older than the rest of the players he needed to be 10 lvls over the others. He also demanded to be the team leader and get the best loot. Because of his bullying I was asked and was already planning an in game way of dealing with him. 1st a snake oil salesman sold him a potion to give him the lvls he wanted but it aged him. He filed to check it B4 drinking. Then I set a trap were he had to choose a bag of holding full of 500lbs of gold or instant death. I and the party meta game told him it was a trap. His greed turned the trap to a TPK and he was never invited back. He calms that we're out to get him and all sorts of evil stuff. Some times you just have bad players.
I felt so bad to for the first DM. They made efforts to telegraph what's happening. I'm sorry to say, but if you don't disclose your disability, you can't expect someone to navigate a situation like that. It's not fair...
100% can say with certainty that having autism had nothing to do with her being an idiot. disclosing having autism is a personal choice and should be unnecessary. the DM did just fine and navigated it exactly as they should have - we do not need to get special handicap treatment in D&D because of autism. neither is anyone entitled to know about it.
@@bishoukun I was being more general with that part of my statement but you're right
On the one hand, she reacted badly and there's really no excuse for it.
On the other, I can wholly understand not disclosing being neuroatypical with people because so many will just cut you out of their group rather than accommodate you. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I think its weird that everyone is ignoring how poorly the 1st DM responded to the issue after the game was over. He blew up his whole group over it because he was beligerent and dismissive and derogatory towards all of his players.
@@bishoukun now if a player was dyslexic, colour blind or dyscalculic (Or any phobia especially the large word one for people with fears of large words) then I feel it is appropriate to accommodate them with some kind of special treatment. Colour blind if you use visual material like maps and such (if self made) But autism I am diagnosed in the spectrum. So you are correct. Also if you feel as a person that your disability could affect your understanding or interfere in the game, I would myself disclose it. it makes people more understandable. Not keep it behind.
Player reads sword inscription
“Whomsoever takes up this blade shall wield power eternal. Just as the blade rends flesh, so must power scar the spirit.”
Player: Neat! *swipes*
For story 1: the DM did the right thing. She was told from the get-go this might happen, and tried to say that her "autism" prevented her from picking up cues when she already picked up on ques prior? No she's a drama queen that felt entitled to be the MC. For game 2 again the DM did the right thing.
You set the world, the rules, and gave ample chances to rethink strategy. You are fine.
Figured I could probably give my thoughts on the first story since I'm a high-functioning autistic individual.
I can definitely relate with certain social cues flying over one's head, and I definitely understand why a character death might feel frustrating if you're attached to them and don't notice the red flags. I've had something similar happen ocne or twice myself.
That said, any justification for the player's behaviour immediately evaporates when she not only didn't disclose her condition before the campaign started (something I always do to avoid confusion) but also decided to not openly speak with the DM during the session itself.
I'm honestly quite frustrated at how she's using her own Autism as some sort of excuse, since it makes it seem like she came up with it on the spot rather than being earnest with the DM. Again: she should've disclosed her condition far sooner if she felt it might cause missunderstandings at some point!
Her proceeding to make demands of the DM is also ridiculously immature since it's just a game! It's great that they were attached to their character, truly, but that's not an excuse to act like a child when forced to say goodbye to them!
It sucks that it affected the DM so much they axed the campaign, but the player was absolutely in the wrong. DMs don't need permission to kill characters. As for the simps, there's really nothing you can do about them. They'll go down with that ship. Here's hoping that DM, and those players reasonably apologizing for the idiot warlock, found a better group of players.
In the first story, I wish the DM had given a little more effort to reconciling and compromising.
But I don't know how they really could have with how this player was behaving. If autism is an issue, it's on you to ask for accomodations at session zero. You can't wait for something you don't like and then use it to demand changes to the game. How hard is it at the start to tell your DM you can't reliably catch suggestive clues and you need them to spell things out explicitly? You've gotta own that.
Going to the other players to complain is immature and shows your intent is selfish from the start.
If I were in that spot as a DM, I wouldn't have blocked them outright, but asked them to talk about it in person with the group at the next session. But that's me.
Like Im salty when I lose a character in a game sure, but without the potential of loss, what’s the fun? If I am 100% going to win, I might as well play checkers vs an easy mode AI.
First story - I don't think 5E is the right system for this DM. There's dime a dozen systems out there and 5E is designed to make characters extremely powerful where they can overcome pretty much anything once they reach the levels where planar travel becomes a thing. It's honestly more akin to a superhero system in terms of power by that point than it is to an adventuring system. There are systems that scale far better out there for that kind of thing, as well as systems that do away with levels altogether. The system is designed with the PCs overcoming death in mind. It's why when you crit fail a death save you take two fails but instantly wake up when you crit pass, it's why death can be undone as soon as level 5, it's why 11 numbers of the d20 are a pass on death saves while only 9 are a fail, it's why any healing at all not only resets your death save counter but also wakes you up so that nobody needs to take an action to wake you up.
Making all of these weird rulings about "making death more narratively heavy" in 5E is like trying to remove teams from basketball to "encourage cooperation with everyone, and not just the people on your team"; the system you're using is actively made against that and there are far better systems out there that you can use for that kind of thing, rather than trying to rewrite half a system to go against one of its core design points.
As for some of the other spells that they've banned, again, you're basically trying to rewrite a whole system, and for some parts, it gets weird like with the whole thing of just assuming that your players will use mind control to skip dialogue when they could far more easily use it to prevent a fight that they don't want to engage in, to just pure laziness with the teleportation thing (just have one or two things in each section of the map, then if the players go there, stalling is really not that hard nor as bad as a lot of people seem to think, just know what's in each place and you can narrate them having trouble navigating, be that because they teleported to a plane where everyone speaks a certain language that maybe one of them knows or maybe having them have a hard time fighting a safe place to sleep for the night and they have to RP out finding a spot, or, if you really get stuck you can, you know, communicate with your players and tell them that if they go through with their teleportation then they can but you'll need to cut the session there to prepare the content in time for next session)
If you have to ask, "How am I even wrong?" ...its a giant red flag that you yourself is indeed in the wrong.
Asking this questing comes from the conscience, big or small, and represents a feeling of guilt. A feeling you immediately admit to in the beginning of the video.
You knew the answer, you just didn't want it to be true.
I judge that kill as fair. If she had problems, she should've been up front about it, not coming in after the fact. Also, it was pretty messed up to sic the rest of the party on the DM cuz she was upset.
I already left a comment, but after we watching this video a couple of months later. This is one of the reasons why I also don’t believe that players should have any say over how their character dies if they want them to die during the final boss, or something Pacific, that can be arranged. But if they die to a random encounter, that’s their fault.
Only one dead pc? Players got off easy.
My pc deaths or near deaths most were friend-fire gone bad.
Modified memory should be allowed by the DM by a case by case method. Is it for the character’s self interest or something vulgar, then no, is it to help the party from a character that will probably lead to a TPK, then that’s not a bad reason to use it.
As an Aspergers person, I've been working to *overcome* the social disability difficulties, and so for this player use it as an *exuse* to try to not pay any attention to the just makes my blood boil!
Definitely a bad dm if you ditch the whole campaign after one person dies lol
First story: player was an idiot, simple as that. DM gave them multiple chances to change their mind but they still committed to their actions. They knew the risks and as the saying goes; play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Second story is ingenious and it's good to see the problem player sorta adapted to roll with it (and probably grew as a person) rather than outright ragequitting as claimed.
Second story is actually an amazingly good why to deal with that
Dm: this is a dark world where death is around every corner and the is no second chance.
Player: lerooooooooooooy jenkiiiiiiiiiiins
I will play devils advocate and say there is plenty of room for the dm to be exaggerating or outright lying to us but the only fact that matters to me is if the player actually leroy’ed. even tanks don’t stand in the middle of multiple enemies and come out unscathed, the only reason they survive is their bulk, which I don’t think a spell blade has.
I mean I have used dominate person how it's fucking intended, to take control of an enemy... that enemy happened to be the party I was the GM for so...
"killing my character without permission is wrong" is not an inherent aspect of D&D, freeform roleplays yes, D&D no
In a similar situation, we were fighting a godlike entity at lv 6. While we managed to overcome, that's because our wizard called him a Kinslayer (Which is true that's his whole goal but it pissed him off) so he went straight up to her and constantly beat her in the dust with his legendary actions. I as the healer kept her going as long as I could but eventually he did kill her. Mind you our GM let her come back from the wall, if the cleric gave up her connection to her god as something else brings back our wizard, and thus her home time. She did and that turned into interesting rp.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes cuh
In the first scenario, the DM is absolutely justified in what they did. For myself, I try to avoid PC death as much as possible; were I in that situation, I would instead have one of the fighters focus on the nearly-dead Warlock while the leader (Wizard) and the rest of the team focuses fire on the healer. From the leader's perspective, there isn't much point in fighting the others as long as there is a healer to pop them back up.
For the first story, I think it was handled fine at the table, but the game should not have been cancelled.
The issue was half the remaining players were in full simp mode for inexcusable problem player behavior. The best dm could've done was delay the next game for the 2(?) that were left while they search for more and then completely rewrite the story to explain why so many characters disappeared and others got swapped in. At that point, it's totally up to the dm whether or not they want to go through all that effort and clearly they didn't want to.
@@TheMightyBattleSquid I always attempt reconciliation if possible. But understood.
Being a DM means you're supposed to have fun too. And when you got most of your table fully turned against you. For things you've already talked about when you already mentioned that no resis are going to happen. And players do stupid stuff.
Yeah that would kill my mood to DM to. I am all against the whole suffer through dynamic. If you're not having fun, don't DM
@@cdog157 Just different style I guess.
I was diagnosed with Aspergers. I understand that if the DM says "are you sure?" it is likely a bad idea, especially if they say it repeatedly. From another perspective, I have a strategic awareness enough to understand that separating from the others and launching into the middle of enemy territory is a risky and bad idea
That said, my Aspergers is likely mild and she may have a stronger form of ASD than me. But the only way to learn how the world works and grow strong in this world is to handle the world without special treatment
The DM did what is expected of a DM. If anything, it could have been a non-fatal injury and the character could like end up in a hospital. Maybe the character would not be able to fight or move around much, but they could be a physically disabled advisor or something
Heh, Second story reminds me of something I once Did as a GM for Exalted....
So I had this player that Liked to comb though every book, Suck up to whatever GM they have, and Generally do everything to try and Min-Max themselves to the absolute Extreme (Nothing wrong with Min-Maxing, but when you start to pick "Flaws" and think that they're not really Flaws, or try to Pretend they don't Exist, you're kinda Missing the point of those flaws)...
First part of this was that they took a flaw for "Enemy" and took it at 4 points, For reference, 1 point is an Enemy that is your Equal, 5 points is "you pissed off the Sun himself", When they picked that I asked them "are you sure about this? 4 is a Lot.." they went "yeah, I need to points"... So we decided on their enemy being something called a "Chimera" which in that setting is a specific type Corrupted Exalted... Thing with this one though, it was OLD and it was Completely Immortal... No not in the "It will never Die of old Age" Sense "Immortal", I Mean "If even a Single Drop of Blood or Hair of it remains, it will regrow from that fully formed within a day", It can't Die, not really... And it HATED the Character, it wanted to Eat them, it would never give up the hunt, though it Might forget the Hunt or get Distracted occasionally for a bit as Chimera are Supposed to be completely Insane (That way it only shows up when I feel like it, not ALWAYS there)... First time the Thing showed up, the player was all "Ha, I'm an Unstoppable Warrior of the dawn in Power Armor, I'm Stronger than anything that can be thrown at...OWWWW!!!" And proceeded to get their Ass Handed to them by what I can only describe as a 7 Foot tall Armadillo/Porcupine Hybrid with Razor sharp fangs and Claws that has a healing Factor that would Make Wolverine Jealous(AKA, Nightmare Fuel).... After a few Rounds of getting Hammered, the players decided that Discretion was the better part of Valor, and that Fleeing would be their best option... They hopped on The Pirate Captain player's Flying ship and Bolted... The Chimera continued to chase them for 3 Days before it got bored, running after them, or swimming as needed...... The player learned that "Flaws aren't just Extra points for the rest of the sheet" with that encounter....
The Second thing that SAME player (With the Same character) did was Pester me non-Stop for WEEKS about trying to get a "Factory Cathedral" (Literally a Holy Factory that Craps out Magic Items just from Feeding it Magical Materials, the type of Infrastructure that can completely Destabilize an entire Region's Political power) from just spending Background points at character Creation... I Obviously Said no, for the first 3ish weeks, EVERY time I was "Asked"... But eventually I went "You know what? FINE, Get the damn thing, BUT it's not Operational from the Start you'll have to Fix it up... There's this one Door in your Entirely Indestructible Cathedral that's Locked and you have No Idea how to Open it, you KNOW the Factory portion of the Manse is behind it"... That was enough for them and it gave them when they THOUGHT would be a Short term Goal to strive for to get Basically Unlimited Magic Weapons and gear... Now here's the Twist: "behind that Locked door was gonna be 3 others, Each one requiring a Key that had been HIDDEN away in the region in their own, now ancient, ruins. On each Door was gonna be a Mural Depicting all kinds of Calamitous events and Warning at a great Danger lurking behind them... The Doors Had been Closed and locked while LAVA was pouring though them, so they had to physically dig out the granite between each door before even trying to get to a clue to the Next Key (This Gave them a Cooldown period between each Door). With every Door they opened the Granite would Come to Smell more and more of Sulphur and have an Eerie Green Glow about it (those of you that know Exalted know where this is going)... SO, as it turns out, that Factory Cathedral, being an Indestructible Holy Site, had been used as an Emergency PRISON for a Demon of the 3rd Circle (Basically a Shard of a Demon God/Primoridal's soul, OP Crap that should generally only be used as like "BBEG" level threats)... Every Door had Warnings on it to Tell the players NOT to Open the damn Doors as it would let the damn thing Free... These Warnings of course did not Deter My Dear Munchkin... As I had Predicted...... Hilariously enough though, the player got bored with that character before actually getting through all 4 of the doors, but seeing as the character hadn't Slowed down their efforts to open them up till the player gave em up, I decided "waste not want not, I put some effort and time into this plotline, I'm not giving it up Now... Because DRAMA!"... So I Turned the Munchkin character into an NPC, and as the Players continued to do their things on their own side, Events proceeded as though the Munchkin were still Digging away at their Goal of owning a fully operational Factory Cathedral.... And ventually, they Succeeded... But they also had to bend the Knee to the 3rd Circle Demon inside and become it's champion... Now, I had a BBEG AND a Dragon to play with for drama with my players, Fun!......... The Munchkin was Livid at that point, but when I explained it all, they kinda went "Oh Shit, I asked for it...", the Lesson was learned "No Means no" Especially when it's the GM that Says it, and pestering us non-stop for weeks on end is NOT Ok... Also, Trying too Hard to Overdo it on Min-Maxing, is not always worth it... Oh they Still haven't Forgiven me, but I'm Satisfied that the lesson was Learned! Also, they now refuse to play Any Game where I'm NOT the GM, so I'm Guessing they liked the Drama of it after all....?
That's a lot of words
@@jacobsimpson398 Yes, That is how stories work... Lots of words.
@@kgmotte2363thank you. Simple yet effective response
The second story had good character development
First story: what was the point of the commando squad? A faction to actually fight and defeat? Or Ally npc's for plot ?
Because if they were just fodder, Hexblade could have done better to improve those odds of their party winning the encounter.
If it was that "unknown, prove your worth before we can lend you our aid" type of npc encounter, DM is an ass.
Because you could have probably through dialogue and RP to get your point across(the thing they value by restricting loop hole spells) "are you sure?" Isn't enough of a deterant, or loosely doesn't get your point across.
Oh look a chest, gonna loot it, you sure? Like is the chest have a high DC lock? Is it a mimic? Boobytrapped with a fireball?
Polymorph into a rat? A lot could be possible for the "are you sure?" Defense.
Yes. You are a bad DM and it has absolutely nothing to do with someone being autistic or not. Even though you went over things in the beginning and explained has dangerous things were going to be you should of not had the NPC's attack a player when they are down. This is metagaming on the DM's part.
The reason why is the whole thing about 3 death saves is it applies only to player characters and not monsters or NPCs and is a rule of the game, not an inherent understanding of how people fall unconscious or die. The DM knows the rules of the game but the NPCs do not and so would never ever try to attack a downed PC, not even the gods with godlike intelligence.
A specific example from Star Trek: The Next Generation is in one episode Geordi and Data go to the holodeck to solve a mystery with Data as Sherlock Holmes and Geordi as Dr. Watson. Data easily solves the mystery in a matter of seconds as he has read all of the stories about Holmes and Geordi decides to up the stakes by giving the holodeck new instructions but makes the mistake of asking for a mystery that has the ability to defeat Data instead of saying Holmes.
You can guess what happens next or watch the episode but this is similar in that the DM is having his NPCs use metagame knowledge of how the rules of the game work. They should try to attack if the PC is conscious but then ignore if downed and focus on the rest of the party.
I DM on every weekend with my friend group. I have also banned ressurect and healing dead players in my campagin, but not necessaraly because I want them to feel like death looms over them, but because I wanted my players to *think* before they act.
The session I will mention was around session 24, this is a looong campaign by now, and we've had a few deaths but the players got over them in time. Only one of the original characters remain from the start of session 1, a Human Fighter, who despite being arguably worse in combat than the rest of the team in terms of pure DPS, thinks tacticaly about where he should be and what he is going to do. One of our players (A Wizard) had gotten stuck in the middle of a group of high level enemies, the wizard is practically begging for help, and despite the Fighters better judgement, he rushes in and saves him, but it cost him his life in the end. The player behind the fighter got really mad about it, and left the table.
A day or so later I got a dm in Discord, and he had asked for his character to be reivived. I told him what I told everyone sence session 1, that resurection and necromancy is banned because it makes people do reckless and stupid descisions. He obiously handled it better than the problem player in this video, but he was still mad.
The first scenario seems normal as the story is told, but I think its worth noting that it has been a considerable length of time, and the DM has mulled over it for a long time justifying his own perspective. I'm not saying the DM is lying or anything, but sometimes memory can be faulty in these types of scenarios
For example; maybe he wasn't as explicit with his warnings - or he wasn't as good at giving a eulogy for the dead characters final moments as he remembers. (And maybe the final moments would have come across poorly, if it was prepared, since that could feel like it was targeted and/or railroading the party to face a tragedy)
Just the same, it DEFINITELY sounds like he is not in the wrong here.
There was an established expectation/precedent set in session 0 to clear up what magic wasn't available, why, and the type of game being run. And when this encounter occurred, they were warned multiple times of the danger, as well as of the enemies intent to kill downed party members after seeing one get back up.
I do sympathize with the character who died - It can be painful and frustrating when a character you've invested into dies, and I wouldn't necessarily say they were in the wrong either.
She did talk to the other players, who either sided with her, or tried to act as mediators apologizing on her behalf. But I don't think its fair to assume she was deliberately being manipulative or anything like that. When she said she was autistic....that part rubs me the wrong way, but I'd consider it forgivable depending on how it was said. (Not good, just forgivable)
Ultimately, I just think its a shame how things turned out.
_ _____________ _
As an advice; In addition to the precedents set, for DMs who want to present a greater risk of death to the players, I would advise to also provide alternate death/dying rules in session zero.
Have the system explicitly give players a measure of narrative control when a character of theirs dies.
Such as getting a last stand, taking down or gravely wounding a major antagonist with them when they die, ensuring the escape of other party members, etc. before finally succumbing to their wounds - or if they are truly unwilling to accept death, making it possible to save the character, at a great cost. (I.E. They are left in a near death comatose state, and can only be saved by magic possessed by the BBEG, forcing either a Faustian bargain or an incredibly risky heist way before the party is prepared to fight)
For a game with death looming overhead; Having superficial control over your death scene (such as spitting in the killers face) isn't enough in my opinion. It 'can' work, especially with seasoned players; but typically players are are more invested with the character than they are with the world, so the more heavily that balance of investment weighs in favor of the character, the worse it will feel when that character dies.
(If they are playing with 40% Investment in the character, 40% in the other people, and 20% only in the world - Saying that resurrection is banned isn't going to 'feel' like a good enough reason, and they'd need a major hurrah to recover that investment.)
But giving alternative death rules, which come with great opportunities for the players, should make those scenes far more impactful. All of a sudden, when a character fails that last death save, the player in that scenario is given a choice which will dramatically shape the narrative of the game as well as that characters story overall - and providing that option to make that last save not necessarily kill means the player can choose to keep the character if they have become especially attached.
You could also use rouge-like mechanics, or a mix of the two options.
Let their next character have an expanded point-buy, magical loot of their choosing, etc. that makes it easier to become excited about a new character.
"Unfortunately your character has passed away, but considering the party level, you can make a new character which is a Young Dragon or the new character could start out having a legendary item of your choice" (This route will make optimizer types very happy)
I've had a whole campaign die in like... 4 sessions because of similar bs. The party (orc fighter w/ allosaur mount, battlesmith artificer yuan-ti and tabaxi assassin rogue) was sent to retrieve a lost idol of the dragon goddess Rizmarian (different story) from a kuo-toa lair. I checked multiple times, noted that they will need to be stealthy. The artificer decided to walk straight into camp and alert everyone after our orc and tabaxi had passed their stealth checks.
Rogue was dropped out of the tree he had been hiding in and drowned, fighter was jumped by like 3 kuo'toa and the artificer got taken out by the kuo'toa priest. I asked multiple times "are you sure?" and it got ignored. There was an in-depth discussion in the beginning of the campaign about it being a tough, low-magic setting. I went through every possible route and even prepared a recovery option (Rizmarian is also a goddess of resurrection), but the vibe was so thoroughly ruined that everyone just... left.
I am a woman with autism, it makes me frustrated whenever I hear other people who have autism use their disability as a shield to justify themselves.
I play D&D on and off with my friends and with the one player who DMs, he has a style of dming where it gets very suspenseful and dark, due to that you have to stay on your toes most of the time. It’s in moments like that you really have to engage with what’s happening around the table.
That being said, there are things that I miss during a social situation, I get it, but whatever happened here is not a case of “I miss the social cues because of my disability”. Even if the player may have missed those cues, fact that the DM in the story told the player (not the character, but the player) “ARE YOU SURE” multiple times and “THESE OPPONENTS ARE ATTACKING YOU” are hard things to miss and are good indicators that you are going to get hurt. In this instance, I have no sympathy.
Side note though that I didn’t see in this story though is how people with autism have difficulty with unexpected changes in a routine. I myself have trouble with drastic change if I am not prepared for it.
As the example with my D&D group I stated before, our DM with our last game we just finished, had stated very clear in the beginning of the campaign that if we weren’t careful, WE WILL DIE (and also there were curses present in the game) Once I got that in my head, I was on board for potential death and had an easier time playing in those tense moments (I did die, it made for a good role play opportunity as well)
I assume that the DM at some shape or form warned the group about the stakes of the game, but who knows how much of that stuck with this player if at all. And maybe she was aware of death being a factor in the game but suddenly having a death is enough to trigger her, sudden change and all.
Regardless the circumstance, it’s one thing if you feel wronged by someone, but don’t use your disability as an excuse just because you got an outcome due to actions you took.
First story: Oh yes, the autism. Autism does affect one's ability to understand social cues, but I personally can't stand it if you use it as an excuse for being a dumba**. The player did something incredibly stupid and was punished for it, but didn't die right away. After hanging on with four hp any intelligent individual would decide to at least run back behind people that could actually tank the hit. Another thing: "Are you sure?" Is the universal language of "Think carefully." Again, if the hexblade continues to be a dumba**, they can but the DM still did everything right. Autism isn't an excuse for stupidity, and I've never actually seen anyone of my friends who actually have it use it as an excuse when they don't understand something.
Second Story: This is perfect! The DM didn't tell the player how to play, more like nudge the player in the right direction. Not only that, but the problem player was forced to understand that D&D is a group game, not a single player adventure and asked the party around him for support, which he got. This DM should write a book about what to do when a problem player is being a problem.
1) When DM says that you are gonna be wrecked you listen to the DM
2) WHen DM says it the 2nd time you take it as a divine command and get the hell out of here
3) You don't rush in with healer
4) When DM says the next foes are epic, you should know the DM is about to kill you.
5) If your character wasn't humiliated or you through the char you don't write essays.
Video begins at 1:15
Thanks, Caleb.
@@addison_v_ertisement1678 You're welcome, Jedediah.
I've only played one or two games of DnD about to hopefully start a 3rd with a new DM, but my 1st experience was not too great and so I haven't played much since.
Pretty much I wanted my character to be the tank of the group. Low offense, high AC and hp though the roof. At one point our cleric was low on hp and I was untouched in a battle because of some bad positioning on my part and so I stepped between two centaurs enticing them to get the flanking advantage against me to leave the cleric alone. Well they did. At the time we had a deck of effects for when anyone gets a critical hit which was interesting but certain cards I felt were beyond broken. Despite this we ran with it because the majority ruled for it.
Both centaurs attack, the miniboss centaur crits, a card is drawn. It's X4 damage. I was overkilled and died on the spot. Mind you this is still early game. I have roughly 80-100 health and was at max at the time, the cleric to compare was more like 40. I was demolished at full health with a character I built for being an attack sponge.
But honestly that was fine. I sent my dm a message pointing it out how broken that card was reccomending it be taken out and said I'd be back when I was ready with a new character.
Cut ahead a month. I'm ready with a new character and I'm to show up at some point in the session. They have a miniboss to fight before I'm introduced and I just eavesdrop on the session til then. My DM has a npc that has been with the party since the beginning of our campaign more or less (basically the dms PC). You can guess what happens. X4 crit and he's dead.
The dm did not take my advice, but to add insult to injury... it turns out he had a revive in his bag placed there by the goddess he serves. He is revived, the session continues, my new character is introduced, the session ends... he gets rid of some of the crit cards soon after. I guess its ok for a PC to die unfairly as long as its not yours huh?
Soon after covid would happen. I used it as an excuse to not show up to sessions anymore and haven't talked to them since.
personaly I call BS on metal health problems. Smart monsters are totaly legit to finish of a downed player espeshaly if you show your hand with a healer, after all the PAYERS WOULD DO IT if the situation was reversed.
1st story:
While you could have dealt with the problem better, the blame lies mainly in the "autistic" player.
You were clear on the No Revives rule and stated through the enemy mage that next time they go down, they will be finished.
While you do have some blame for not trying to be more civil with other players, the female player was the primary instigator.
Though if all other player kept pestering you that the female players PC to be revived and would not budge on it then you are blameless.
I'd also like to suggest that in any similar situation that a PC could be brought back as some kind of Undead.
Add some disabilities for having slowly rotting flesh.
A hexblade warlock is NOT a tank, no matter what people try to say. Trying to 1V5 an enemy group is sheer stupidity. Seriously, maybe, and I stress maybe, if we were talking about an overleveled paladin or barbarian in this situation, like seriously close to double the level of the mobs then maybe they could have pulled it off. But a lock? Even a hexblade is nit designed to do that. In a 1v1 yeah they can hold their own, but other then that they are a damage dealer with mild defenses.
The dm did nothing wrong, I'd have probably done the same thing. The nicest I would have played it is one hit while they were down, putting em at one fail left. The cruelest would have been had their head severed and hoisted as a trophy.
I love the idea of a gritty game but I probably would have restrained the warlock as a hostage and negotiate the party's surrender. If negotiations fails at least the party and player have had time to think of an exit strategy
That second story feels like a bit of a fib but for the sake if argument let's assume its real. While the player absolutely did exhibit problematic behavior, I dont agree with how the DM went about "solving" it. For one, the player was right in that the DM was being biased toward them (the DM didn't even refute it, only contested the bit about power not being evil or whatever) because they set up a scenario they knew the problem player would fall for and while yes a chance to walk away was given, c'mon not many players -- problematic or not -- are gonna easily walk away from loot thats right in front of them. So when the paladin finally succeeds, the DM drastically alters their sheet with no discussion with the player of how they would feel about it. For one, you don't need a Mcguffin for that. It's built into the paladin class that if they do not remain true to their oaths, they risk losing their power.
What I'm ultimately trying to get at is that this DM decided to continue a potentially toxic player be in the play group, and ruin the rest of the party's good time to teach a "lesson" when they could have acted like an adult and spoke to that paladin player either one-on-one or as a group to discuss the player's behavior and resolve it then and there. This elaborate and roundabout means of addressing the problem rarely if ever actually works. You waste time and you risk the rest of the table's fun because you want to be clever and passive-aggressive.
I am a GM and I always give warning to the players, I will not throw broken builds/combos or use items that are unfair until the group does it first. I use to be a min/maxer so I know what to look for and so long as we keep the game fun and enjoyable without the game braking stuff, then I will not use any of it.
I also tell them that alignments while are a thing, dont hold meaning in the traditional sense, LG paladins can and will travel with CE because the world is not good vs evil but rather Us vs Them.
I have ran too many games in the past where everyone was a min/maxer and all they did was kill anything and everything. It made GMing really hard at times.
First story is a tough one for me (every DM is different). On one hand, the player is blatantly using her disability as a shield to make you look like an asshole and after so many "are you sure" thats a failure on their part.
On the other hand, I could never get rid of resurrection, because 1) I feel like the spell is rare/hard enough to use that low levels won't abuse it. 2) It's shitty to feel a few real bad roles and oops, the story you built for your character over the past few months is down the drain, buy cheater dice noob. I'm not an author, nor a sadist, I want my players to feel tense sure but still have fun. As a player, I'd leave the table.
As she knew the rules and stayed majority of the blame is hers, but i wouldve still pulled her aside before I issued the final "are you sure."
DM in story 1 is a bad DM, but only because he doesn't allow persuasion rolls to do stuff. My character hs 20 CHA, I dont.
If you step into a potentially fatal scenario, death is fair game. If you don't expect that, then your expectations are unrealistic, and that's your own problem. Also, as an autistic player/dm, using autism as an excuse to get their way like that is super gross - and also doesn't make sense here, as these were logical cues, not social ones. When you have 3hp and you choose to stay behind enemy lines while flanked, you're going to need a handful of miracle rolls in order not to die.
Player death happens if you cant handle your characters dieing then why are you even playing a game where they can die. Its not Unfair that the chracter died its just a result. The dm exsplaned their Intelligence as well so the way in which the player died isn't an issues.
Edit: also i get the taking out ressurection spells but there are other ways like making the spell components harder to obtain. I personally want my players to have access to all that the books have to offer. And raising people from the dead is one of them. If they need a component that costs money or is consumed by the spell i keep track of them and make them do the same. Hell revivify requers a diamond worth 300 gold pieces. Just make diamonds rarer or make it more expensive to buy the diamond. So death is still heavy and still a valid threat but theres a chance to revive them should they die.
All is fine. Player wanted to die so player died. If players just can get resurrected at will it takes all weight out of battle. You died? No problemo! We will resurrect you in a turn! As many times as you want!
Why would you have no mind affecting? That’s crazy, you just only want people to use fireball?
Honestly from a dm standpoint I can fully understand the rule against teleportation because it makes it hard to have everything ready for the next session when the pc`s can just zip over to anywhere in the world at any point but the rule about no domination spells would bother me because spells like modify memory and command ECT. I feel give a viable alternative to the murder hobo route. The only time I feel like it make sense is if you're playing a combat heavy one shot where it's ment to just be a murder hobo adventure where rp would cause the party to not be able to reach the end of the quest before the available time for the one shot ends
as one who has autism, using "Oh i have autism so i don't pick up on stuff like that" is dumb, and shouldn't be a excuse for poor gameplay and decision making, it's dumb
No one likes to see a character die, that includes the GM, but if the GM gives multiple warnings that imply that it would be smarter to retreat and you still want to risk that battle knowing full well that the enemy is not going to take any prisoners, well you can't really complain if you do die in that fight.
The first story sounds like an ignorant PC who believed they were immortal getting what they deserved and the second one was actually a good turn around of how to help guide a troubled player into being better, although honestly I hope I never have to deal with one of those myself
Bwaaaa, You killed my character without my permission, what a cry baby
I hate when people use autism as an excuse. There's difficulty with social cues and then there's... this.
Drop those who are problematic and keep those who actually want to play
Of course he is blaming you hexblade. It's your fault
I have to say that the titles on those videos start sounding like an isekai light novel titles :P
The fact they severely limiyed numerous spells from the get go is honestly really lame, they essentially made a meat grinder
Paladins have to actively check for evil, it’s not true sight!
Play a great game stupidly, get stupidly destroyed...
Not the ahole. I hate stupid players.
(SORRY FOR THE LONG BOOK OF A STORY) I was officially diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome back before it was just an autistic spectrum. That being said, I am a HUGE D&D fan but am only ever a player never a DM because I get way too detail focused so I would only MAYBE host a session maybe once every few months. As a player that has been both in and witnessed similar situations as this I do not believe you were unfair especially since you were not made aware of them being autistic to begin with you have done nothing wrong and honestly you hosting homebrew sounds fun and I wish I could join in a session and try out how you DM but I doubt I will get that chance. And if you want a fun story you can share sometime then I have one related to a druid monk I had that ascended to being a diety of their own realm. The session was homebrewed 5e with some modified 3.5e sprinkled in. The DM was doing a player DM thing so he wanted to give himself something he found useful and I convinced him to allow druids the same spell. Well the first session started us off at level 15 preparing for a one shot town defense that we turned into the campaign. The spell was dimension door but modified to let us make our own realm how we wanted it to be. The session went alright, our paladin was an egomaniacal ass whos diety we met a solar of and they took to my character and basically ignored him entirely. My character was turned into an acolyte of said diety and during the battle we had a balrog appear and nearly slay the solar. In the process of helping the solar I collected some of their blood, them being an all powerful enforcer of the diety my character prayed to. After helping the solar get back into the fight and after the battle was over I managed to brew (using a nat20) potions of immortality. These potions stopped you from aging both naturally and magically so you were locked at the age you were at. After drinking one of these potions and giving the rest to the party I opened my dimensional door, sped up time inside of it and for the next 2 hours of world time I spend over 100 years maxing out the size of the dimension, building lakes, an ocean, mountains and even an Yggdrasil style tree that if you laid under it would feed and hydrate you by lowering a vine of what you needed. Nothing insane but the plane was set up to be a planet in shape. Now before the siege I managed to not only convince an earth elemental and 2 fire elementals to help us (knowing Primordial helped with this immensely) but being a druid I managed to convince AND TAME 6 owlbears in the process! These 6 owlbears we rolled a percentile to figure out the gender ratio and it was an even 50/50 split. The owlbears were brought into the dimension and during this time generations of them breeding resulted in over 300 owlbears all loyal to my character willing to defend the plane if anything managed to get in or come at a moments notice if I needed them. By the end of the campaign I hit level 20 and had 6 levels into monk and 14 levels in druid, a pair of heavily enchanted punch daggers that were designed similar to the assassins creed hidden blade, a branch of the Yggdrasil tree in my plane with magical gems encrusted in it with a small relic of my diety as the center piece of the staff and multiple people and towns in my plane. (Most of the people were either refugees willing to live a peaceful life with respect for the planes natural ecosystem or druids from a magic guild we encountered that I agreed to set up a permanent door to my plane for) now the ending was the BBEG was slain from my owlbears just outright mauling him to death (stood no chance) and with our retirement I worked on building a magical castle with unseen servants and endless food using scrolls since that spell was for wizards to cast. Casting the spell every day for a year made the castle permanent and I made it my fortress in my plane. The diety I hade been praying to actually acknowledged me as a being of divine power with a following worth recognition! Multiple dieties came to my plane which I had to let them into as the plane was protected by only having the doors as an access into it. They were considered outside the multiverse entirely and those doors were the threads that tied it to the multiverse at all. With the dieties at my plane both Mielikki and Silvanus were impressed and said my plane was a realm befitting of a nature god. The other gods and goddesses agreed and my character was bestowed godhood. So I became a nature goddess that had their own realm, a loyal group of worshippers and creatures alike and something I forgot to mention, they were a human canine hybrid due to a homebrew race I made that was in the style of a curse you got at a young age and slowed your physical growth but let you mature normally while you gained ears and a tail of a natural creature like a canine, feline, ursa or some other land creature. With the mutation gave you an understanding of the baser language that species used so you could understand and speak that language. For a druid the druidic writing could even be interpreted into that language in our campaign and all of this existed in every campaign I have been in with the 2 DMs involved as my friend was also a DM but he was a player for this campaign. I like to make any of my druids from that point on worshippers of Hinata the compassionate goddess of nature!
I figured since this channel is about D&D stuff that some people coming here might like to read that story so sorry for the length of it.