Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Narrated D&D Story: Why This Might Be The Last Time I Ever Tried To Be A Player
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 січ 2021
- Was the OP being overly critical or justified in why he wants to not become a player again?
Thumbnail Art: bit.ly/EverTrie...
Story Source (by u/Margoul, Reddit): bit.ly/EverTrie...
Feel free to send us your stories here: team@allthingsdnd.com or post it directly on our website or on our subreddit r/AllThingsDND.
Make sure to subscribe to our channel for more amazing Dungeons & Dragons content! Also, follow us on internet on other channels here:-
Website: www.allthingsd...
Facebook Page: / ytallthingsdnd
Facebook Group: / allthingsdnd
Discord: / discord
Watch how to properly be an evil necromancer here:
• Narrated D&D Story: Ho...
Watch how teamwork can make even an unbeatable encouncer beatable here:
• Narrated D&D Story: Ho...
Credits-
Video Editor: Murtaza Bohari (msurtaza77@gmail.com)
Editors: Lonny Foran (written4reddit@gmail.com)
Narration: MyLo (Twitter/VoMylo)
Thumbnail Art & Channel Artwork: CJ Downing (carljdown@gmail.com)
Stay tuned for more awesome D&D content!
#DnDStories #DnD #DungeonsAndDragons
OP here . After looking at some of the comment I wanted to give some clarification and corrections after "cooling down" (Sorry if some of my english is not that good it's not my first language) :
(1)- Looking back at this, yes I overeacted and decided to find one of my player to maybe become my DM for a one shot since he know the rope by helping me a lot in writing for other scenarios .
(2)- This is not the only reason I didn't enjoy being a player . I must admit I don't enjoy much the downtime and this is why I feeling more entertained as a DM since I need to prepare and adapt my stuff on the way if my player go out of the path I prepared to keep a quality experience . This interaction was mostly a "final nail in the coffin" and just frustrated me for a while but like said in (1) I decided to give it another try with another group and DM.
(3)-I saw multiple comments telling me that I'm power hungry and just annoyed that the story didn't go in my way . I actually enjoy far more when my players do unexpected actions that make me rewrite completely the story (Like killing in the first encounter my BBEG I prepared for multiple scenarios) and I actually encourage that type of behavior (when it's actually constructive and not breaking or going murder hobo), one of my player's character actually became the BBEG and it ended in a really good scenario ! (Might write about it later) . The two interactions are mostly one of the two last sessions of a 6 sessions campaign and a lot of time the scenario was not going as I expected and I actually truly enjoy not being able to see the plot coming (That's for me the essential pleasure of being a player) What I didn't like is how the "Gotcha moment" were for me unjustified and how they were praising it and saying "Oooh we are such bad people !" I will explain on this on the next points .
(4)-I do not enjoy fighting that much in my scenarios, I still put fight in it since my player like it and they get pretty clever in trying to finish them in original way, but I try to not make it the meat of the sessions .But when someone shoot my character on site I do not see why I should be ashamed of fighting back and killing them when they clearly would have done the same if they could .
(5)- For the goblins I totally understand my group not wanting to finish the job : My character was a ranger from the village so my loyalty and my goal were to be sure that my village was a safe as possible when the rest were mostly adventurers, so it's normal they wouldn't do something that doesn't feel like fighting evil monsters . I was mostly irritated about the fact that they said we truly did something wrong by attacking the goblins and even brought it back after the undead encounter .
In conclusion : Yeah I overeacted but it mostly happened because I felt really invested in the story in the first sessions and the DM was doing a really good job putting mystery and wonder into his sessions .The NPC's were feeling alive and all different and this actually gave me a good lesson in DMing . And that's why watching the last sessions ending up two times in a row in a "What a twist ! You were the bad guy all along" felt unjustified and more cheap . Looking back it wasn't that bad and I decided to give it a chance again .
Anyway thank you All Things DnD for narrating this story and thank you all for your opinions on my story , even the negative ones, after all it's always important to have constructive criticism to become better !
I completely understand your point. When you think about it, those two kill quests felt a bit cheap and as someone stated elsewhere in the comments it would've been better if there were clues that could indicate that they might not be doing this just for fun (for example, investigating the cart and noticing only the food was missing). The undead one is even worse, like there is a trapped person, they shoot on sight and the only thing that contradicts that is a letter at the very end that basically said "oh no, why did you do that, I was a goodie".
My opinion is that, you just didn't find the right set of players and DM to play with. Maybe you should talk with the DM, out of game, just to tell him about how you feel, cuz if you really liked the first few sessions then I dont think you should give up, yet. Trust me, when you find the right ones to play with, you're just too excited to play so during the downtime you look up for other desperate people on forums like DnD Beyond and r/lfg, find a group aaannnd end up DM'ing bc you were the only competent person to do it lol. no...I am not talking from experience...absolutely not...definitely didn't have to put up a one-shot in 10 minutes...........
@@nyx0103 Well actually we knew it was mostly food that was stolen . But that doesn't change that we are in a remoted place . This isn't just pleasure like wine or meat but the lifeline of the city . I don't see why the survival of the thieves should go before the village that was just minding his own business and lost a loved one because of some others problems .
For the group I will be fine, Since all of that I still have lot of people that want me as a DM but also in this I started feeling some repetitivity . I have now started writing special one shot scenario with one of my best roleplayer that I will start to share online . I will keep Dming to Beta test my work but I do not think I will do campaign, mostly one shot .
I really do understand your point of view somewhat I was in a session where we had a similar dilemma to the goblins but there was added twist that they were dying so the GM had mercy killing as the only option. I disagreed for in-character reasons (I was playing Paladin-type who always who always chooses disobey orders that run contrary to what he feels is legal/moral options) and proposed we get them to nearby town to treat them but the GM shot me down and booted me from the group.
You didn't do anything wrong, there are those of us who completely understand.
Idk? Sounds like you were angry you didn't get to be a mary sue. You don't have to like what they do, nor do you need to keep being a player. But this whole situation seems like a whole "woe is me" situation.
This is the first time I have heard "I have been dming since the beginning, tried playing a character, didnt like it".
On the subject of whether the guy was right, I sorta agree with him. based on what he told us, which was subjective, the quests were: kill this for money, thing attacks, oh no thing was actually good. The fact that there was no other explanation for why they should not have killed the undead aside from, be holy, it sounds like they were forced into combat. So I agree with the subject
Yep
No, be holy was the only reason given for why they SHOULD kill the undead. They weren't forced to make that decision and could have investigated or communicated or even just decided not to do it at all. And even if the undead guy attacked first, they could go on the defensive or just disable instead of attacking and still communicate without being hostile..... there are ALWAYS other options, this player just only saw the benefits of the violent options and for some reason couldn't separate his frustration in the clash of ideals from his feelings on the game
@@ithalathegayguy I see what you are saying, but I think that you have to look at this from a standard player without alternative knowledge. If a trusted quest giver gives you a quest to kill undead, and the undead attack on sight, you don’t really have a reason to think that you should just leave them be or look into their motives. Especially since most undead are mindless brutes.
@@ithalathegayguy Is your first thought when dealing with a 'kill undead quest' to think "maybe the undead aren't bad"? OP asked *precisely* why the place needed to be cleanse and the response was "for holy reasons". If I was in that situation, I would have thought it was neither important or relevant for the PCs to know, given how DC said it.
Had the DM gave some hint that these undead could talk and/or just wanted to be left alone (the introduction of the new PC could've worked, having him listening the mage saying that and PC later saying that to the others before the fight), but they still engaged in combat regardless, THEN they could feel bad for themselves for acting before thinking, but nope, it was more a forced combat with a fail plot twist for drama.
@@claydragonet139 but, at the point that the undead actually speaks to you, even if they do attack first they've now proven they're not mindless. Maybe I just look at it differently because one of my 3 current characters deliberately tries to avoid killing unless there is no other option (he entered into a sort of pact with a Great White Stag who told him not to kill humanoids or beasts or else she'd die, and her mate, who later became part of the pact, told him to kill if it is absolutely necessary but to not be malicious or vengeful) but the second something reveals that it has sentience, the whole combat changes.
My other 2 characters are criminals (one has actually been crowned a Prince of Hell, the other just works for a crime family and hoards magic items) and are much more likely to kill to achieve their goals and would have agreed with this player.
Adventurers under attack: *fight back*
DM: It's pretty messed up that you would do something like this.
God, my last dm did this, literally everyone else in the group called him on his shit for it
I can not tell how oftem my Char had went to cover after beeing greeted with heavy Fire and then suggested to talk out Things. Ok, sometimes it took some Nades or Fireballs to convince the other Side to agree to it, but in the end, Things get talked out mostly.
But yeah, some GM do not get it at all - but, I do not see it in this one. Look, he kept the Gobbos Evil according to the Books and still managed to bring in this "Moral Dilemma".
Also, he did with the Skeletons.
So, in this case, I think OP (or/and Party) at fault.
@@techwizsmith7963 My Last DM too. At least OP's DM didn't say they had to kill the unarmed Goblins but mine did.
Mercy killing was a choice... and the party thought sending a group of goblins to investigate a werewolf was also a choice...
Children goblins and one pregnant one at that.
@@kharijordan6426 better choices existed but it would have involved the party taking fault for they’re actions and giving support to the goblins but I feel like that’s less likely for some reason 😕
@@blazeking1705 well...the ppl who did feel bad for them did want the same goblins to hunt a werewolf so odds are they really didn't actually care.
Pretty much sending the goblins to their death.
I don't have a problem with people playing evil characters. But i think there is a problem when the players don't understand why an unethical action is unethical, and don't view it as unethical. Killing a bunch of children of a sapient species would very much qualify as unethical, evil, villainous. This is a big and well known issue with dnd's original alignment system.
Was the OP being overly critical or justified in why he wants to not become a player again?
I do think he got a bit too upset there, though I do think he did raise some good points. I think he was a bit of both imo
I can understand his views SOMEWHAT, but I honestly think a more reasonable solution to the problem would be for this guy to try to show his DM how he DMs for his players in order to avoid any unnecessary drama, and ask him to do the same; because let's be honest, you can really only enjoy the FULL experience of a TTRPG when you have a chance to be on BOTH sides of the GM screen.
I think he was being overly critical
I think the fact is the player is so used to having control and built up a set of expectations of what should happen, making them hypercritical, the answer if to they are right, that's subjective.... To be mad at your fellow players and the gm/dm I am not sure if that was the player being the player or the character, we don't have enough info there on that though. We do have the delivery of the morality of things and that needed reworked or needed to flow better in my opinion. It breaks how a person is invested in the story remember when mass effect 3 first came out as example or was it two? (Doesn't matter too much) I myself have roleplayed multiple times with different types of player characters and myself had a hard time when I was playing a level nine character with a past life of experience and over 20 to 30 years of exploration under his belt in addition with ruin soloing get locked up in a chest after being surprised by vampires, however the character was an occultist in Pathfinder with holy water, telekinesis, and silver weapons
It makes it difficult when you give the dungeon master a backstory and they just put you and your weapons all together without actually doing anything else with it other than your locked in a chest. My character had the ability to non-verbally cast without hand gestures, so that kind of broke me out of narrative immediately with the introduction of my character, the other issue is my character was a lone wolf type loner so he also broke dungeon Master's perspective of how the story wanted to go so that ended the session with that one with two sessions. With the DM saying your character is fine you're doing fine but you excel in a smaller group when we have six or seven people. Short story but my character decide to persuade a dragon to let him pass alone to scout ahead when the DM wanted to have the party kill the dragon I can tell you the characters Loadout but really doesn't matter let's just say it was interesting to say the least.
I'll say that the next time I go into a role playing game I want to know what the expectations are of the DM's and of the players so that I can figure out if I'm a good match or not for the game.(one more added thought while editing this) The other thing that needed to happen is the player needed to talk to the dm and bring up their concerns about what was happening and why it was happening to the dm or gm the other thing I think that needs to be considered is this question, was the player having issues with the characters or was it the character having issues with the characters? Because sometimes we as Gamers forget that we're playing characters and don't always follow the actions that our characters would do.
Quick question, are you r/Start ?
This isn’t a “Woe is me! I never get to play player!” Story. It’s a “I tried player and wasn’t a fan, I’m more of a DM guy” kind of story. And that’s fine! But he is certainly not stuck as a DM.
I just think he hasn't found the right group and DM to play with. The DM in OP's story just set up a "Kill that, do that! Oh no, turns they were good afterall, you should feel bad about this." and OP just didn't like it (1. cuz he is an experienced DM and 2. I'd get why he didn't like that)
This honestly felt like a murder hobo campaign was being told, because everything I've heard mainly involved kill this and that and not about solve this problem with this as possible choice.
The goblins were going to die anyways after most of them were wiped out and the undead attacked first
In Lore The Undead seek for nothing but to make living things stop doing that thing. You know, Where they are alive. They will literally destroy your crops just out of spite. The whole point of their existence is to give players something to kill on sight.
You feel like that because the op only cared about killing things
@@jonathanmorphew6786 To be fair, the scenario seems to kinda have been presented like that (I may be wrong, but when in doubt, I give the benefit of the doubt). Imagine yourself in his place. It's all hack and slash, then suddenly, MORALITY!!! Twice.
The fact that he can never parlay with the enemy aggravates this. The DM should have sent someone, anyone, within the ranks of the enemy that doesn't agree with the situation so there could be a mediator.
Yeah I was in a campaign like this. It had a war theme where we found a mass grave of people dying from a biological weapon and the GM said we had to kill them despite there being a town with a medical center not that far away.
Helplessness does not equal Innocence.
hope you keep making amazing DnD videos like always and thanks to all the people who submit their stories.
I think this one took it too far...
Like, I can understand the situation and it did look bleak, but just outright killing them isn't right either, bit of a gray area, if time wasn't exactly an issue then I'd probably suggest taking a more peaceful option of either teaching them how to make their own food or finding a workable solution to help all parties involved get what's needed. But thats just me... dying of starvation isn't ideal but maybe showing them a different way to get food would have been the better option?!? Idk
Agreed.
I think OP wanted things done in a certain way and hated that the others players over ruled him and did something else.
Op kinda lost me at "it made me wanna find a way to turn against my team" like you wanna start pvp because the players felt bad about what they did? Feels like you're a bit of a that guy when your a player
Or this could be a case of a chaotic neutral player with experience vs a group of neutral/chaotic good players who are kinda new to role playing
Not sure how you got to that conclusion.
It seems like you wanted to find a fault with anything OP said instead.
Essentially, you're reaching pretty hard there.
Yeah I should have elabored on that part . What I meant was I was thinking of turning my coat on them not attacking them in PvP that would have been completely stupid and out of character . A thing I forgot to point out is that we discovered that the monastery of my character's village (Where most of the story is happening) might have been the bad guy since they were supposedly the one awakening the undead . I wanted in character to pretend trying negotation with the monastery and instead warning them it was a threat . I didn't plan of my character surviving that ordeal but that would have been a way to express my frustration in a roleplaying way . But the sessions ended before all of this .
I guess I was overeacting and despite them being pretty seasoned players I was dissappointed not for their moral choices but that they fell for something that I thought so cheap . Telling me "No dude we are totally the bad guys here" .
Looking at it right now it doesn't seem like a huge deal and after that I did a one shot again with them without this problem, but just didn't really enjoy playing as a player but nothing due to my companions in that case .
@@ademuran The one player who wanted to have the goblins search for the werewolf was such a horrible and way worse option than what you had suggested. It really sounds like the other players were easily baffled from the "moral" choices that weren't real moral choices. Either that or the DM was trying to change how morality worked with the alignment system, because destroying undead that have their souls still trapped on the prime material plane that are not neutral or good is always a good thing as it allows their souls to be freed.
Was there any house rule changes that you were aware of that changed these situations?
Even if he had wanted to start pvp over this I for one won't join a pity party over we killed unessisarily when I pointed out that they were in the middle of nowhere and not expanding
@@asdergold1 not trying to find fault with op here it just seemed like a strange thing to say if he wanted his character to leave he could gave said that but why "turn against my team" because the first thing that comes to mind when you say "i wanna turn on my team" is you betraying them somehow and my mind went straight to pvp
Edit: also i did make a second claim saying that this could be op and the rest of the party having two different play styles so I don't get how you can assume I'm stretching to make op the bad guy
I agree/disagree with the opinions of the writer of this story.
I play both as a player and DM, mostly player.
I agree with the writer on the fact that the DM did some bad choices in the fact of interpreting the story and the cliché of those situations.
I disagree when he acted a bit too harshly when the party was going to guilt trip them and resulting in him seeming a bad person.
P.S. I mainly play evil characters in my campaigns
Yeah, the dm seemed a bit inexperienced, but it seemed like he was trying his best. As a mostly dm who also plays as a character with a much less experienced dm then myself, I think OP should have tried to help him along instead of comparing the dm to himself. It came off as a bit egotistical
I disagree with what happened with the goblins, but I really do think the DM and players were being way too “I wanna be a hero” to see how dumb the situation was
>Wild-West-lookin' D&D
>Yeehaw Intensifies
That was one bad Session he shouldn't let that keep him from trying to be a player if he liked it so much.
The players seemed a little 'wet behind the ears' and seemed to think that they were the good guys in the story when they were actually just people in a world and other people have other world views where in THEY are the good guys and the Players are the Bad Guys.
I agree, his problem is with the group he was playing in, not with being a player. However I can speak from experience that being upset enough to want to slight the players in-game is not going to solve anything.
Talk it out after the game out of character.
If the dm for this campaign wanted to do a “question your morality” type story, the encounters should’ve had some sort of details to suggest that they could’ve been peaceful, like have the goblins NOT shoot the merchant and only take the food after scaring him off, but the dm for this campaign didn’t think about that, and made violence the only option, but tried to trick the party and have them feel upset about something that wasn’t even telegraphed in any reasonable way.
The forever DM made the right call
Agreed I was in a session like that. The GM gave a scenario like with the goblins but took it one step further and said we had to kill the civilians. I was booted from the party for refusing because of in-character reasons.
The dms trying his best though, if I were OP I would work on my communication skills. The dm wasn’t acting maliciously or selfish by any means, he just lacked some experience, which the OP should have supported him with instead of whining about it. On the other hand, OP wasn’t shitting on other peoples fun just because he wasn’t enjoying it, so in a way it’s a no harm no foul I guess
True. With a game like DnD, communication is vital for things to go smoothly
I can see both sides here, but OP's attitude got on my nerves far more than the poorly-handled moral ambiguity.
I get it, maybe being a player isn't for him, and maybe he had some mediocre sessions as a player that coloured his opinion somewhat. But this guy was way too pedantic, nitpicky and judgemental of other DMs' abilities, not to mention his constantly comparing them to himself was *really* arrogant. Seems like a control freak who just can't handle not being in the driver's seat.
I agree with you for the most part, but one thing to point out is that he was shitting on other peoples fun at the table just because he wasn’t enjoying it, so I’d call no harm no foul
I wasnt there so i dont know, but from his story it's sounds to me like, if that is how he is as a player i probably would not want him to be a dm for me
@@nbpraptor
I get the impression that OP is the “that guy” of another story.
Mostly seems right, but it sounds like he really enjoyed the other DM’s work in the town and NPCs, and perhaps that made him more emotional when the other quests failed in comparison. As a pro, he could recognise impressive DMing, so having that fall for the basic stuff might be more difficult for him to experience than we think? Like seeing a kid paint an amazing portrait, only to put a mustache on it? 😛
I dont agree with him at all. At least to me, it doesnt feel like either of those options were punishing or forcing them to feel bad, you kill off the main fighters of the tribe, leaving mothers and children, who can not fight, they could be recruited and even eventually incorporated into the town for additional aid, goblins r crafty buggers after all. As for the "if the skeleton wanted peace he shouldnt have shot people on sight" argument, that's a shallow response, (in my opinion) because from the skeletons perspective he had just come to life in a world full of people that would KILL HIM on sight for their gods, he never went looking to cause harm, only protected his turf, while others actively conspired to destroy him, of course hes gonna shoot on sight. I think he was too critical towards the other players and sounded like he wanted a more traditional black and white moral path cutting down foes
The OP can't handle people having different ideas than them, and they're clearly not flexible.
The DM and the group seem to have the exact same problem. The group is incapable of thinking like "Pacificists" either because it's what they think, or the DM is punishing them for not thinking that way.
Alternate title: Shire DM needs new group so he can learn to be flexible, like a good DM.
One thing that would have been a perfect set up for that undead scenario... Knowledge domain cleric. Once they discovered the mages wishes he could have given a last right in an attempt to send them to their diety's realm and knowledge could be had
That hindsight guilt bs is where i would draw the line, especially with a gm who runs his monsters as murderhobos at introduction
*Goblin slayer* : there will be no mercy, their existence only brings death and suffering.
I kinda agree with the summary you gave at the end. Life is rarely black and white and, although not executed flawlessly, the DM was trying to make the world a bit more realistic.
I'd argue the DM was railroading for a "haha gotcha!" moment as there was no ability of the players to investigate or roleplay for different circumstances. I'd bet money the DM heard stories, maybe even from this channel, of DMs flipping flipping the script on player morality but he has none of the ability to pull it off without it just being a railroad surprise.
OP sounds like a control freak IMHO
Not really IMHO.
Eh, seems like some over-reaction. I was expecting way worse from the DM who honestly sounds like he cared a lot and is probably just inexperienced or trying something new that might not quite fit
Although the choices bits could have been handled better by the DM it really feels overkill to say "I"m never going to be a player again!". Honestly feels like a control freak that is pissed the story didnt go where he wanted, and why he wants to be the DM again.
If he doesnt like to be a player thats fine, but those reasons are bullshit.
I 100% agree
Precisely what this is really about; the OP is a control freak, which is most likely why he prefers DMing. I can sympathize with his points about "gotcha" moments, but that was an afterthought. His actual complaint was that the party didn't do what he wanted them to, so I shudder to think of how railroady a DM he must be.
@@thedarkwhiz5261 Damn... I didnt even think about that. I now wonder how his DMing is and how he reacts when players (inevitably) go against his plans.
Keep in character and out of character reactions separate. There's nothing wrong with your character disagreeing and being hostile over an incident ingame, but once it starts feeling personal, as it seems to have here, then yes. It's very much overreacting. Wanting to turn on your party because they reacted differently to an ingame encounter? Not to mention how overly dramatic the implication of this being the incident that turns the OP off of being a player forever is...there are so many rpg horror stories about so many worse things out there that it just feels so petty to me. But hey, subjective reactions are subjective.
Seemed like the dm was trying to get a 'I spare you, you stab me in the back' kind of play out
I agree with the guy over not being guilty about his choices. Even if it was obvious that there were female and children goblins involved in the situation they would still be stuck in a "kill or be killed" situation cause if the goblins killed a merchant once they would do it again. Killing the women to take them out of misery wouldn't be right tho.
About the undead, he asked if it was necessary and the team still accepted the quest. Slaying the undead wasn't much of a sin anyway, since they just were sent to their slumber again
Never being a player again is overkill tho, some DMs can handle situations pretty well, but things will most of the time not going to be how the player expect. This is basically most of the thrill about being a player and you have to be ok with that
I was stuck in a similar scenario to OP and haven't been a player since but only because I was booted from the party and haven't found another one yet. I wasn't given the option to mercy kill the GM made it only option.
Love this channel
I found that tabletop players fall into one of five categories. You have the forever DM, the forever player, the guys that can swap between DM and player when they feel like it with no problems, newbies, and... "THAT guy".
i wanted to put this out there for people that will truly appreciate the sheer amount of luck that happened here. In my the last session in the campaign i’ve played in for well over a year there was both a large scale fight, a dungeon, and the final boss battle. So safe to say a lot of combat happened, during this campaign i often rolled poorly every single time(to the point where i rolled 4 nat 1’s in a row but that’s a different story). But this session the dnd gods decided to give me a break and apparently give me more power then ever because i rolled 24 nat 20’s(not in a row that would be insane) in the span of what wasn’t near enough time to do something like that. My DM couldn’t even get mad, he knows how bad i normally roll, he was just impressed at this point. He even went as far as to make my nonmagical odachi magical in a little to no magical weapon campaign. So needless to say i don’t think this upcoming campaign has any odds in my favor
I kinda understand the frustration with the player on this point when dms try and rip the rug out and sit on a moral high horse. As an example in a recent one shot me and some friends did we were exploring a cellar of local lord that were told were infested by fey. While exploring we ran into blink dogs. We did our best to be diplomatic and even spent a good 20 mins trying to show them we’re not hostile tried to talk to the blink dogs but when we entered a room the dm had us start combat. Only one dog actually died, but after combat ended the dm described how each dog was wearing a collar and how there were doggy beds in the next room. Turns out they were the lords pets. It felt like such a forced “moral choice” because we had spent so long trying to be careful and he never implied that these blink dogs were domesticated. Now I’m all for putting the party up against sympathetic opponents but you should give the players some hint about it otherwise it just feels kinda like Dick move
One better attempt to integrate the fallen goblin tribe into the village
This sounds like a case of one player disagreeing with the table but losing due to majority.
That undead wizard thing sounds like Mogworld
I enjoy being a DM, as much as I try to avoid it when I don't feel like I have the energy (Which is often) but I also don't mind being a player. If I had to choose between the two, I would say I prefer being a DM, since I get to craft the world and characters my players meet. Sometimes, they get attached to certain characters, and sometimes they hate them, but that's what makes the game so wonderful.
I agree with the guy, I don't know how I'd be able to play in a group where every time a bad guy has reasons for doing something it means your motivations were meaningless. "we just wanted food and to survive!" yeah so does our village, and you decided to kill and steal from us. "I just wanted to be left alone!" yeah but you kidnapped this dude and you were obviously created by some necromancer who's gonna show up and reassert his will at some point. Also we approached and you immediately tried to kill us.
Frankly, I agree at his being annoyed. The DM was using gotcha moments and toying with the players’ feelings.
Oh boy... all those morally grey moments were very poorly executed. I could feel the whole “are we the baddies” vibe through every encounter this guy went through.
Bearing in mind, each of these enemies’ first option was to *shoot* or hurt someone. Which if you have no intention of being violent, it shouldn’t be your first option. And yeah, I get it, monstrous races, but you don’t win any “peaceful” arguments if you keep on doing violent things. If the DM of that game worked in a moment where there was a scene with the goblins treating their more vulnerable, you could build some sympathy and give them the option to actually realize the grey in the situation. That wasn’t present- and OP was essentially pointing that out.
Each set of enemies struck first, and their reasoning for their attacks was idiotic. And they basically told the group they would do it again if they had to. It was very ham-fisted how that DM handled the morally gray situation. I don’t blame OP for starting to think that his group was just being straight up idiotic by thinking they were the baddies in this situation for shooting first- they got all the information that was provided to what was going on and no hints of the monsters acting strange. I would have dropped some hints or let the players act how they may.
It really boils down to "If someone comes at you with the Intention to Kill then their Life is Forfeit" Meaning if someone tries to kill you, you have every right to end them.
Honestly I'm also on the side of the op and while understand what I'm about to say is controversial but I would kill the goblins in secret do to the fact that there being no better option seeing as one they are likely too low leveled to have any significant impact and two they didn't seem willing to not only bring other options but also to actually help them
I would agree with the Goblins part of this story, but not the skeletons.
He stated himself that they were not hurting anyone and that they only took it for the money in a Holy quest.
Be a skeleton: you don't know how you came to be but know that others do not see you as a good thing and will more then likely come after you for being unholy. Would you not defend yourselves first. You as a player and as a character do not know the history of the enemies you face. Most just just in guns blazing and still see yourself as the good guys.
@@BIGFRANKOL75 question are you saying op is at fault? sorry im dumb so i dont always get things the first time
@@BIGFRANKOL75
Not first but definitely after I was being attacked. Yeah.
I KNOW THAT MODULE!!! You were at Cragmaw Castle.
The module is "Lost Mine of Phandelver"
I run a D&D game for my son and his friends. They have a Cormerian knight, a Elven mage, a Dwarven cleric, and a Goblin rogue.
They freed the goblins from the Owlbear's slavery, then brokered a deal between the goblins and town and now the goblin tribe defends Tri-Boar road from bandits. As for the Undead Mage.... the parties Elf NAT 20'd his history and diplomacy checks.... he and the Undead mage belonged to the same order. They now bring it journals and books when they travel and now I use this ancient spirit to drop hints about larger storyline.
You gotta look at this from both player and DM perspectives. DM should be prepared to handle multiple resonings for situations, what motivates a monster(s) and why the characters are making choices to stop the monster(s). Players should always be open minded about decisions when it comes down to bargaining and life or death scenarios.
Always gather the stray NPC they can work and guard your Base ... they are allways necessary
so this guy got upset the enemies had motives and the other players felt guilty
No, he is upset cause the enemies did things that made their motives irrelevant, and undead mage that only wants to be left alone locking people in cages will only get search parties and angry relatives and I can think of a dozen things the goblins could do that had minimal chance of endangering the merchant's life.
So as a DM I heavily disagree with this guy. He was kinda sour towards his team for no well explained reason and I get disagreeing with them, but to be angry because you want to enact violence is kind of a confusing approach. The argument about the undead mage I agree with but you can't argue with people's emotional reaction to a situation even if yours are different, as a DM he should know this. I think he prefers a hack and slash game with a little less RP so it makes sense but we never figure out what kind of a DM Op is.
OP didn’t handle things very well to be sure but I understand where he’s coming from.The problem is there has to be a disconnect from what the players and dm want or think, and what the characters and npcs want or think. It’s ok for your character to become frustrated, upset, emotional, confrontational, or angry even with the other characters, but you as a player should just enjoy the game and have fun with your friends.
Yeah, I think the problem would mostly be ham-handed presentation and/or the mismatch with the OP's preferred style of play. Sometimes you just want to fight monsters, and other people want more "human" drama.
It seems the player was on the he right track to roleplay. "What did you think was going to happen?" A perfect question to set a great experience. Problem with the player was that he was not reading the rest of the group. He got mad when players made their own choices. I get the sense he feels obligated to choose whatever everyone else is doing. The DM made the problem of ending the scene of goblins on a very bad note. Sure the aim was to make the party regret choices, but the scene could have tied into a greater story. As a suggestion, the goblins could have been down on their luck due to a lord or some kind of monster. Maybe they was originally forced from their land. I think the DM was focused too much on making the party feel bad that he didn't think of a follow-up.
I personally feel a good DM needs to be a player every once in a while. Each DM has their strengths and faults. My childhood best friend runs very entertaining events as he is great with improv. His little brother ran one recently for us and I was very impressed with the props he crafted to create an immersive experience. DMing is not easy for some and it sounds like OP needs to give his DM a bit of grace. Not everything is going to be a hit. I've had DM moments blow up in my face many a time in utter embarrassment. I've found if a DM notes the flow of the game and all agree, then all is good. The DM should convey this at session zero.
Ehhhh, Honestly things could have been worse. i mean maybe i get leaving the group for not having synergy with the players but never participaing as a player again seems like overkill. But who am I to judge about overreactions? After all i’m still yelling about “ YIRBEL LIVES! “And such.
Hey story writer here . Mostly it's because I have trouble being captivated as a player on the long-term . It's not just due to that game but something in general of me when I play a game as a player, I need more control and "duty" to really enjoy D&D . It's just that this session didn't help at all . I'm thinking of trying again as a player with another group but none of my crew wanna be DM .
I don’t think the player (OP) was overly critical. Yeah, there were some bad choices but I’d say everyone made bad choices. My first time playing dnd with people wasn’t exactly a success either but a good friend in the group told me it’s all part of starting. And even though the player had lots of experience being a dm, I kinda got the feeling that the player either didn’t have enough experience being a player or just might have been rusty. Either way, I’d say instead of never being a player again find a group more your speed with experience to match. Like I said, everyone screwed up. And even though I’m still a greenhorn player myself, I’m eager to learn and grow as well as maybe one day being a dm myself. Anyway, I hope my input makes you feel better and once again All Things DND this was incredible! Thanks to stories like these I’m learning how to be a proper player and am getting incredible ideas for campaigns! One day I hope I have a story good enough for you guys to tell!
Each D&D world is unique to the DM. I ran into a similar situation when I tried to apply my idea of goblins in my DM's game. My reference was the goblins webcomic where they are an intelligent and oppressed race used for sport hunting adventures. The DM based his on the recent anime where they essentially only exhibit the most violent and cruel tendencies. Can't apply out of character expectations with in game rules unless you are on exact same page as the person running the game
... That one was a little dark.
There are always other options. The OP could have definitely convinced the Goblins to go to the town for safety, since they were obviously open to talking. The local village might have taken them in as refugees. As for the skeleton mage, he was obviously the only undead in that area who had a mind that was in-tact. They could've diplomatically handled the situation and convinced him to leave the holy grounds. It wasn't the DM giving them "gotcha" scenarios or trying to make them feel bad, he was trying to give them alternative ways to solve problems.
Writer here . Actually asked the goblins and they responded that never people would accept them and honestly I don't think the village would have accepted after knowing those goblins killed a long time friend and looted their goods .
If I was part of a game that guilt tripped me at every corner after creating scenarios where I got attacked and had to defend myself I wouldn't want to be a part of it either.
If the party had been the ones to start the fight when they could have tried diplomacy then sure. But as it stands they were basically punished for not choosing an option they didn't even really get a chance to. And the fact the DM was willing to pull this twice not long after each other is a bad sign, who knows how many times he'd use it in the future.
If anything, I would be upset at the other players and not the DM. To me it sounds like a really good DM and some conflict between the party. Blaming the DM for this is definitely unfair.
Not sure if the DM for this campaign was that experienced or not, but it seems like some of these issues could be cleared up by communicating with said DM. The forever DM should have brought up his distaste for the last-minute plot twists in a constructive way, maybe giving him advice on how to make the whole "we're the bad guys?" moment more compelling. I feel like it's not really the fault of the players for reacting the way they did, they remind me of when I first started playing. TLDR: always communicate with your DM about expectations, maybe start off with a session 0 to go over where you want to take your characters.
this is the voice of the hair product commercials!
I mean, I get where he was getting at. And base logic works in both these scenarios.
I'm a pretty critical player myself, and I would have done the same in those situations if I was more a neutral or chaotic aligned character. The PvP mention though was completely ridiculous.
Yes, thank you! I’ve been getting sick of the “Oh yes! Here’s some monsters that are actively trying to kill you. Oh what? You fought back and killed them? Surprise! They weren’t really ‘monsters’ at all you racist jerks. They had families, and that makes everything they’ve ever done okay! You’re bad and you should feel bad. I really made you think, didn’t I? I’m so clever.” type of thing.
Making a villain a “sympathetic” antagonist doesn’t automatically make them a well written antagonist.
I disagree with this person because there are rolls you can make to try to communicate first. It sounds like the party just wanted to keep attacking instead of try to make peace with a hostile enemy.
I think the DM only wanted to teach them to try diplomacy first but wasn't the best at it. He knew what they needed, but they had no one with the wisdom.
Thinking on it.. I can see both sides of things.. but I think the OP has a subconscious idea of 'this is how it should be because it's how I do it, and if it isn't like this I don't like it'.
He DEFINITELY overreacted at the other players responding to the moral quandary.. and if I was the DM, I would not be comfortable playing in his game if he felt that way and didn't communicate that to me. Communication is key in ANY relationship, and that is a massive failure on the OPs part.
Its Phandelver right?
In my opinion the player dm was not picky but in most stories or shows like goblin slayer it is bad to keep them alive and I believe that may had a few things to put into it like the making the merchandent scared maybe use stones small rocks and such not arrows and the skeleton there could have been a sit down but once you add a kidnapping and such well got a few options after that
This is pretty much what I expected from a DM-to-Player Scenario.
What I find heavily ironic, however, is that the OP, already been DM, should already understand that every world has its own rules. I understand that he would be annoyed by his Party Member's decisions but he cannot say anything against the DM's performance unless that DM is really aiming to grief the Players. It is like asking God to have things your way. As a Player, you have the responsibility to learn how to live in the world your Character is in, no matter what happens.
The player just sounds like a control freak. Probably wouldn't be a good DM either.
I'm a forever DM, and I've had a couple of personal issues with being a player nowadays.
If a player kills/assaults an innocent/important NPC in games I DM, a criminal investigator gets hired by a local lord to find the perpetrator. If the player keeps doing it, they're going to have to fight an enemy that excels in taking down people quickly, and face whatever justice may come to pass if they get captured.
When I'm a player and fellow players start doing that, there's not much I can do to stop them from screwing up relationships with NPCs and making people fear/hate the group. And if the DM is scared of consequences, then it'll become a murderhobo campaign immediately
Now personally I don't think that alone would've kept me from being a typical player, but the OP already stated he was a happy forever DM who had been left disappointed by other campaigns. As for the scenarios themselves, the goblins are fully aware of common sense. They murdered the merchant. If they wanted to rob him they could've just surrounded him, and if they really were fully good goblins they might've actually interacted with society. On top of that, the goblins, whose very nature has been described as the culmination of all that is bad in the world, shot first. That's literally a guy who was being attacked in the street by someone, killed the attacker in clear self defense, and then being called a murderer. What the heck. As for the skeleton being peaceful, that's a goddamn lie and you know it. For one in almost every instance of undead, death is a release. You'll even have Skyrim zombies you ressurect begging for death and saying thank you when they die. Also, attacking people on sight and taking captives instead of diplomacy is not really what one would call, peaceful.
Yeah, I don't blame the OP for being frustrated. Everything that happened was within the realm of reasonable -- but definitely not necessarily to everyone's taste. Also, the goblins vs. the undead are very much two different situations in my mind, not the same.
1) Mercy killing the goblins is an understandably controversial choice. In the D&D universe, it makes sense, but it's hard to square that with the appearance, in modern terms, of outright genocide. Not every group of players will go for it, and as long as the players are interested in it, the moral question can lead to some interesting RP.
2) However, for a player who was against mercy killing the goblins to then use them as a stalking horse for a werewolf strikes me as extremely inconsistent, if not cruel. If I were the goblins, at that point, I'd pack up and try to move away -- and quite likely die, but it would seem to offer better odds. Also, as OP said, they were being pretty disingenuous.
3) Undead defiling a holy temple is a whole other thing. If the goblins had avoided humans and just done their own hunting, then attacking them would have been hard to justify -- their existence, on its own, doesn't cause anyone any problems. Undead are typically considered a desecration of the natural order by most good-oriented deities, most nature oriented deities, and a lot of the lawful ones, and their creation is a huge taboo. The skeletal mage might not be responsible for his own creation (though he might have been lying, as well) but his appropriation of a temple is doing to material harm to the deity to whom it is dedicated and to their followers, just by being there. There's an obvious parallel to the goblin case, but it's not the same. And in back to back sessions, is maybe a little too soon for the DM to be guilting his players.
I think the main thing it comes down to is having different expectations for what the game would be. I don't blame OP for feeling less than fulfilled when his character feels outcast for being the only one to hold the unpopular opinion. Sometimes it just doesn't click.
Short answer, yea OP is being a bit too critical. If your character feels a particular way, make the story work in that way somehow. There were some good points, like sending out a pregnant woman out for investigating doesn't make sense. In this case, I would've ruled over the goblins, commanded them accordingly as a dictator of sorts or suggest a more peaceful option that if one of the party members feel guilty that it is now their responsibility to undo what they have done by taking care of the goblins. Just like anything here any multitude of options could have taken place.
I think the OP is in the right here, from what he told us it definitely appears to be that the DM's set those situations up for the team to be in the wrong.
Reminder: The GM never said "It was Wrong" - it was the Players who judged that way.
The GM kept Neutral - things are just Things as they are. Of course, the Gobbos just wanted to "live" - but, they resorted to "evil Ways" - as the Playrs did in retaliation.
Also, the Skeleton Mage did also "wrong" - and, a Party which goes "Hey, let us go there and Raid soneones Tower!" is not on the "Good" Side - they are not better than the Gobbos.
I think the dm was trying to set up a moral dilemma but was a little bit inexperienced. I didn’t get the feeling that the dm was intentionally trying to get them in a gotcha moment but wasn’t very adept at laying enough hints. If he was truly trying to lure them into a gotcha then the merchant would’ve just been shot with arrows and the goblins would’ve said he resisted
Whats "the fantasy code"?
Yeah, I agree with the guy, especially with the goblins, one has to be EXTREMELY hypocritical to "spare" a pregnant goblin and her children by making them go after a werewolf in a forest full of dangers, honestly, that is just an excuse to not have blood on their hands directly, but the result would be the same, likely worst.
The guy would was just in the wrong kind of group. They sound like White Knight kind of players, while the forever DM was a Gritty/Practical kind of player. Both fine ways to play, but tend to be like oil and water in the same jar. Eventually they'll start to separate.
I think this one was just a contrast of gaming styles. Anyway I have to give props to op for not blowing off his frustration at the table, regardless of how you feel you shouldn't crap on other people's version of fun.
feel Op is abit too nitpicky with this, though hes fair with thinking the DM and the others could have done it better but even then i dont think they were that bad either. sorry to op but as a player i feel like they wanted to be more incontrol of the situation, too much control
Agreed
I don't think this is a full right or wrong story. The story teller says that the other games ran by friends weren't that bad, but not his style. I think this was a "final nail in the coffin" tale. I could see the OP's side and while it's not something I can fully take in, I think this was a "Why I only DM" style story. I've played and DM'd for different people and group. I've seen some that share the same ideas as me and we enjoy ourselves, and some really enjoyed a game I would not typically be apart of in my adventures. It's a "I have to get this off my chest" story for sure. Good luck with future sessions and if you decide to play again, I hope you work out all this stuff on a session 0.
DID YOU VOICE IN A HAIR GROWTH COMMERCIAL??? I recognize your voice!!! If it was you congrats!!!!
Honestly from what we got it seems like the players were the issue, not the DM
No it was the GM. As OP pointed the Goblins and Undead were hostile to everyone until he suddenly made it a moral issue.
@@emberfist8347 the GM didn’t tell the players to take the goblins or undead wizard who only minutes prior where attacking them at face value did he?
@@corksucker It is very clear he wanted them to feel bad for killing them.
@@emberfist8347 meh probably but unless he completely railroaded them the party could have easily seen where the OP was coming from and agree with him. The players chose to be swayed by the words of their enemies
He sounds like a sarcastic player, I know many people like him, he is also correct, if there is obviously only one option don't feel guilty about it after
Yeah I think he kinda blew it out of proportion. If that’s what made you quit being a player then your standards are way too high.
Judging from this the op may have just had more experience handling this sort of interaction, and the dm could have been a newer dm
I had a solo session once where I accept an OFFICIAL quest from a tavern quest board, in which an adventure was needed to stop a small group of goblins that were reportedly disrupting merchants and trade caravans just outside the range of the city guard.
So wanting to earn a little gold my lvl 5 fighter accepted the quest (which a guild/tavern employee approved and also took my information down)
Even though I was a fighter I was dex based and was primarily using stealth and a bow, and when up close had a Glaive. I sneak into the goblin hideout and slowly take out goblins but at the end it turns out they're very aware and not a threat and to make a long story short, after completing the quest my character was treated as a racist and a murderer. I stopped playing that campaign
I'm with the writer of this story. Evil may have it's reasons and may have gray areas, but that does not mean it deserves mercy. Justice requires action!
Also, they're goblins... and skeletons are spooky.
The only good goblin is a dead goblin.
Well, I am missing more Perspectives here to make a truly founded Statement - so, heres my "Gut Feeling with indications for it":
I, as long Time Player and GM, feel, that the OP here is mostly at fault.
It seems - as it was not mentioned - that he never sought to talk Things out. Also, it is a very self-centred View and very much focussed on the Bad - the good sides only get used as relativization to back up "why I am right to feel pissed". At least - for someone who is that way himself - it feels that way. Too similar that smell is.
The GM did not "punish" anyone in the Party - it was just, as it always is - a struggle of Power which the Looser does not like. If the Party does not like that sort of "Twists", they have to speak up to the GM about this. Some Players want the simple "Good vs Evil" with no shades. Others want it ambigious as Fuck.
And, that OP - as a GM himself - here not starts to midigate rather than to pack his Stuff and go "I will never Play again!" is clearly a Sign of what I assume above - that he is not "that Great" as he thinks. "Good GM" does not make "Good Player", I am the best example for that. Also, in my experience, GM tend to do Metagaming a lot, as as GM you need to keep the whole Thing in Mind - but as Player, this is not good.
Also, killing "Innocents" (Here we go - the Geneva Suggetions) is no good deed. Offering them Shelter and implementing them in your own Society is another Option. Sure, sending them to Exile in the Woods is cruel - but Geonicide is another Thing. Also, here OP does not look good to me rather than a Fuckhead with superiority Complex.
Most GM jump on any Plot-Train you provide them with. Like finding another Goblin Village where to send the others to. Such Things. But, commonly, Gobbos ARE Evil, thus they will resort to violence again. This way, OPs Char is right, but still for any living Creature that is not "Evil" himself, Geonicide is no Option. Bad Roleplay if his Char is not the "Stone-Cold Killer".
So, in the End, I just can say: I have this feeliong that I'd like to play with this Party and GM, but not with OP.
Those 14 dislikes are from the goblins.
The story itself was pretty meh but I really liked your opinion on this All Things DnD!
I do agree that the player at least seemed over-critical and allowed those feelings to negatively impact how they interacted with the other players at the table. I suppose they might have been allowing their past experiences to negatively impact the current game.
But I do agree with the reasoning. I wouldn't have much patience for "gotcha" attempts either as they are both poor debating and poor storytelling. In my opinion, presenting an obvious solution and then punishing the people who take it is not a good moral conundrum (and overall harmful to the game as it will eventually lead to the players not trusting the word of the DM on anything). The way I see it: moral conundrums are problems and situations without a perfect solution. A question with no correct answer. It takes a lot of preparation and setup to be able to do one well, and even a lot of professional media tend to screw it up.
This guy really seems like someone who doesn’t like any story but his own. Like. He just gets frustrated when his group doesn’t agree with him? Or when he doesn’t like how things are going in terms of how the DM is doing things? There’s plenty of times where I wasn’t a fan of how things were going in campaigns as a player, but that’s to be expected. You can’t have everything you want while playing nor can you make your fellow players a hive mind to do what you want. I have a feeling that there’s more to this story judging by how much the other players were against his actions. He might have left out a few things that would point to him being ‘that guy’.
Yet, I can see how it would be frustrating for him. The twists weren’t really given any hints towards them in order to be subtle enough to catch on if you think back to previous behaviors. Still though, it sounded like everyone but him was having fun. The other players seemed really invested in the story and OP didn’t mention anything about them seeming to be irritated. Personally, I think OP was a little power hungry and wanted to backseat DM
After they killed all the goblin warriors they "spared" the pregnant women and children by forcing them to hunt a dangerous monster completely undefended. They then attacked a deliberately isolated settlement of undead just for money. He's not "that guy." He's mad because his group is being morally inconsistent.
I'd say the DM-player was in the right. A lot of chances for roleplay seem to have been stopped by the DM, and the players ended up punished for listening to the DM's info (as well as acting in a narrow-minded fashion, but you don't have many other options when you are lacking info). Definitely sounded like the variant of "gotcha!" moments that DMs should be trying to avoid in their quest & story designs most of the time.
If you are going to bring Morality options to Dungeon and Dragon players - Talk to them about it first!
While one might think warning the players ruins the surprise of a Moral driven story line, it is required if your Players are going to make Characters who care about Moral choices in the first place. Without this warning it is very easy to get a party of adventurers who are as deep as a puddle, existing only to kill monsters and collect loot. We laugh over the Murder-hobo stereotype but there is a reason it exists - if you are delving into dungeons for a living, the only way to keep living is to kill everything that might eat you!
We can not fault a player for building Characters towards that expectation, and then playing the game with it in mind.
So snip it in the bud at Session 0 by telling them you plan for Morality, it gets the players into the right mindset.
Should you still want to put Morality choices into your game, but not warn your players about them, I have a trick for you:
Non-Lethal Options and Skinner Boxes.
Before you go deep into the morality aspect you are going to need to train your players to think about Non-Lethal options. The easiest way to do this is to grant additional rewards if the baddies are brought in alive, even require the first big bad to be captured alive for any reward. Make them realize there might be financial gain if they don't go about killing every sentient creature they meet, and they will begin to wonder if there are other ways to go about these problems.
You also need to give them an example of combat that doesn't involve lethal force early on. There are many ways to do this but I like giving the party a beating by some powerful goons sent by one of the little big-bad's they are after. You would be surprised how many players do not even realize non-lethal damage is an option within Dungeons and Dragons, even those whom read the book may have had the concept atrophy from lack of use. When they wake up in some alley way, robbed of a few trinkets they might want to get back, they might click they can do this to their enemies... knock them out and take them in!
The final part is the Skinner box - When you stop mentioning a non-lethal reward option, see if the players to try and collect them none the less. Reward this behavour for the first two or three times, then start flipping a coin to determine if they get an extra reward or not. This will break their brains a little, I don't really know why but feel free to study the concept of Skinner Boxes and recognize how evil it is when you learn just how manipulatable we humans really are. If done right, your Players might not even be able to think about killing someone outright just in case it is eliminating a really nice reward for doing the less murderous thing.
About half way through the story you can start implanting the Moral Choices, as the Murder-Hobo nature should have broken!
As for Morality Choices:
I know it is the 'Joker trope' but my favourite is to see if I can get a player to kill an N.P.C.'s that is willing to surrender, out of anger or disgust over that N.P.C.'s previous behavour. It is all the better if this is an N.P.C. that has managed to escape capture previously, creating that situation where it is very easy to talk one's self into thinking it is for the greater good. Not many heroes can resist pulling that trigger and ending a real threat for good, having faced them down a second time....
i agree with the OP here, i woulda IC and OOC agreed with mercy killing the goblins and the same with the whole undead situation aswell.
I feel like the OP is being a bit of a spoiled sport.
Perhaps having been Forever DM for so long, they forgot that as a player you have to communicate and not all of your opinions will be accepted by the group.
There will be times when other characters or players don’t agree with you. That is not a reason to quit. That is an opportunity for roleplay.
Work to change your allies minds or discover that maybe you are the one that needs to change.
OP was just getting grumpy for not having their way.
I had a similar situation to OP but I was actually booted from the group for disagreeing with them and it was for in-character reasons.
This just sounds like OP knows story structure enough (either consciously or unconsciously) that shallow gotch'ya's like this aren't really engaging and just feel flat. I know if I wouldn't be having much fun if I was in a game and the DM kept having aggro enemies run at me to only introduce something after the fact to make them sympathetic. You make the badguys sympathetic before, not after. And if you're not having fun then you really shouldn't keep playing.(Though I would've invited the gobbos or something)
I think if a DM gets heavy handed pushing morality, I take it up a notch.
"You killed our menfolk."
"Yea, and they were the lucky ones"
*Rolls to make a gpblinskin coat*
I agree with the player in this case. (The DM player) He had a sound logic. It keept placing them in situations where they were fighting and then guilt triped weird.
I mean if you think about it any survivors would die slow painful deaths and the skeleton attacked the party
Back then, life was hard. Like, no joke hard. Nowadays, we live so comfortably, life threatening hardships are completely alien to us. Before we discovered that germs were a thing, any injury could be fatal. We can't even fathom how it would feel like to live in a world without ambulances, hospitals and medicine.
The players were thinking like 20 somethings from 2021 who never knew hunger and war. If they had the knowledge of a few things about survival, the reality of medieval times and warfare, they would have thought differently.
Like it was described in the video, the goblins were attacking a trade route. Trade routes in the middle ages were not commodities. They brought vital things you had no means to produce, like medicine. They meant the difference between life and death. Goblins, to support themselves, were killing the village. And they couldn't be reasoned with, because they attacked on sight. The only way to quell the conflict was to eliminate the warriors, which were all the abled men who could provide for the community.
So, what's left from there? Using the surviving goblins for scouting was as morally questionable as finishing off the survivors. BECAUSE IT'S ENSLAVEMENT!!! The goblins are pissed at being decimated, they won't do your work willingly. And while they're busy doing that, they won't survive if you don't feed them. The third option, to leave them be is somehow even worse. Not seeing them starve slowly to death doesn't make it any better and if they recover, they're still gonna be pissed and WILL start an all-out war with the village, posing a threat to all that they come across.
This is what war looked like back in the day. You either (a.) slaughtered them all or (b.) you took them as captives to sell as slaves in order to cut your losses from the bloody war. Nobody was stupid enough to (c.) let them be and recover, at least not without (d.) taxing them to the point they could never amass the means to wage another war.
So, yeah, the guy in the video had a grasp of those solutions, but not a full one, the players applied modern peacetime morality to the problem, which was completely out of touch, and the DM roleplayed the goblins poorly in the end. Because if the goblins had survival in mind, as they should have, they would have offered themselves as captives. I mean, goblins are always the fodder of other races, how do you think it happens?
Actually DND has magic, gunpowder, clockwork, and potions that can put modern medicine to shame, as well as warforges, golems, items enchanted to be used for riding, such as a couch serving as a plane, lose an arm you say? Inject troll blood and it will grow back. As a gift last month for the holiday a artificer turned simple sculpted ice into a permanent source of light and heat that will never melt to provide a cozier reading chamber in my lair.
Also there is less travel restrictions, gambesons made from cave spider silk... have you ever eaten cave spiders? Oh they are delicious!
There are enchantments that can be put on a simple set of clothing... Um, I'll just try to not leave you too much to read at once.
None the less though you aren't wrong. A player who can't think of things of the perspective of some one who actually has to struggle to stay alive, isn't a player.
@@rachdarastrix5251 They have those, sure, but it's a medieval setting and not an industrial one. They don't produce all of those at once in small communities. If they're lucky, they may produce one of those and they depend on trade routes to get the rest. Also, the surrounding communities will depend on THEM to get what they produce, so, again, trade routes are life and death.
Also, while wondrous and powerful, magic is supposed to be extremely rare and difficult to master. Also, you have to imagine how it would be regarded in society.
Imagine being a Sorceror. You display your gift in the streets for coin, the next day the mafia kidnaps you and forces you to freaking topple a government. And it works! That, or the church controls where and when you use your precious daily spell slots in your "volonteer" work (you only tend to rich nobles because the church wants funding). If you're a wizard, you probably got tutored by a court mage who has to fill out a form every time he casts Prestidigitation or face execution.
Suddenly, a life where you sleep in the mud, fight more people, beasts and monstrosities in a year than the king's general in his lifetime while risking your life every day on stupid shenanigans seems very appealing.
@@claude-alexandretrudeau1830 For me its a little easier then that, boring as that may sound. I can control dirt sand and rock with my mind, it is more a natural ability then anything. I am a very good climber as well as have the ability to leap over 50 feet. Also I can catch the wind and glide hundreds of miles.
Sound too easy? Well it gets worse. While not wearing anything at all I have a armor rating of 22.
You'd have no trouble getting me to fight monsters. The more challenging prey the better. Especially if it is something venomous as I prefer a spicy meal.
But a humanoid? I dispise having to do them any harm. Sure it is difficult to find any who are actually smarter then their own escarpment but once I find the ones who have a functioning brain, I see if they want to play. I always look forward to seeing how they react to my jokes, pranks, and stories. Just a shame their quality is hard to come by.
My first DM ever had my character abducted by the thieves guild once. In the heat of the moment, I asked why I was targetted and he answered: "Dude! You have 18 charisma! Your character is hottest thing they'll ever see in their lives!" (AD&D 2nd, where ASIs don't exist and a score of 18 is a huge deal)
I learned from then on that, in a believable setting, especially where malevolent people run about, anything out of the ordinary will be coveted.