Ranger is NTA. If another character's background is that he killed your family, that conflict is on other character not you. If the DM forces you to be a cannibal lycanthrope and then kicks you out for being a cannibal lycanthrope that's a nightmare DM problem.
I like how Ranger was hateful in-game while the player IRL is trying to make the party interactions work out as best as possible without betraying their characters.
Also it didn't come across that Ranger was of evil alignment but that if he accepted the curse it would change his alignment allowing DM to make it into an NPC but resisting the curse and role-playing that it is slowly corrupting and changing his actions as a side effect is a clever way to get around that rule as written.
DM: "Your character is too disruptive." You mean the character who YOU forced to be a follower of the god of hatred and a cannibal? The DM basically made this character semi-unplayable and killed the PC for it. WTF?
Reminds me of a fantasy class archetype I heard about, a rogue who exchanged stealth and finesse for intimidation and brute strength. Sounds fun and interesting to play.
[barbarian]: "I roll to sneak." [DM]: "No good, and now the guards see you." [Barbarian]: "Okay then I roll to intimidate and shout 'YOU DON'T SEE ME, TURN AROUND.'" *rolls a nat 20* [DM]: "Yep, that'll do it. The guards quickly turn back around looking quite startled. They proceed to ignore your presence."
That Ranger story almost sounded like the DM wanted to teach him a lesson for wanting to play an evil character but the Ranger just kept rolling with it in good faith and the DM just ended up giving up and killing him off lol
Second Story: Actual story aside, I like that player's interpretation of "Neutral Evil", as it's how I think of that alignment as well. Not a villainous or malicious person, just someone who's selfish and kind of immoral when it comes to getting what they want. I do think that forcing more evil onto the character is garbage. I wonder if it was the DM's way of punishing the player for playing that alignment, by being like "Oh, you want to be evil? Sure, I'll make you evil. To the point where it becomes a problem for the other players." Very weird way to go with that.
My interpretation of Neutral Evil is more along the lines of Apathetic Narcissism. Doesn’t really care about anyone or anything, but as soon as it directly effects the character themself then all bets are off and everything considered evil is officially on the table until the threat is dealt with. Well, not everything considered evil, there are some very hard lines that I as a player refuse to cross both in and out of game
First story: I think the DM probably wrote himself into a corner when he wanted to try out the cool new lycantropy stuff but it ended up interfering with his campaign, so he just killed Ranger to reset things.
Last story: Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it sounds like the DM was doing more than just trying to match a couple of friends with related fetishes; it seemed like he was trying to set up them up to play out his own private porn fantasy.
Don't try to set up your friends into getting into relationships. While it may sometimes work, you're far more likely to ruin the friendship between all three of you if it falls through.
The third story is 100% on the DM. It was *their* idea to dump all this on OP while OP was trying to find the happy middle where everyone wins. The DM had to have been prepared for dumping a new Goddess on a PC then lycanthropy that they didn't want because they wanted to test something out
While the Ranger was a disruptive PC (the player was trying to be accommodating), the GM was the one who okayed it. And then allowed the lycanthropy issue - what did he expect when the LE character starts eating people because of a forced condition?
@@tabeechey That would bring out some serious sexual things though...those creepers would spin this badly. Not going to say it here as it is very NSFW.
@@tabeechey Not what I meant at all. (yeah my breath smells like you cause i just ate you out ;) ) i said i wasn't gonna write it but you needed an example to get what I meant.
I know teenagers are in the age of discovering themselves and such, but man it's so weird to see two people at the age of 16 and 15 being identified as "dom" and "sub" respectively.
My thoughts exactly! Like what the hell? With 15 years old, you are still trying to figure out want you like. Geez. Especially girls often just go with the flow because they are too insecure to voice what they like and what not. Calling a 15 year old a sub is wrong on so many levels
Yeah like teenagers having sex is nothing new but having them in such an involving commitment needing constant trust and awareness that usually most healthy BDSM relationships rely on does make the mind boggle.
Ranger story: I feel like everyone, maybe more the DM, wanted Op's character to be more evil than Op wanted. I feel like a lot was being pushed onto Op, and not so much the other players. And shouldn't people backstories who connect be agreed upon by all involved parties? Did I miss where Op agreed to having Rouge be the one who killed his character's wife?? That last story: Even if the players agreed to nsfw content in the game, the hard R is something that I believe should be left out. It honestly disgusting, and I think people should side-eye those who want it. The DM clearly had a far worse and different idea of what BDS and M actually is.
Already saw the Ranger story. While i understand the DM trying to do damage control to save their campaign, they brought that upon themselves. DM literally chose to made the PC become a cannibal murderer via the lycanthropy mechanics. They could've have changed that to better accommodate the campaign. The player even wanted to solve the situations in peaceful way.
how to set people up the good way: introduce them to each other, possibly by bringing them to some kinda boardgame night or DnD, and then do *absolutely nothing more than that*. if they happen to be a match like you thought, hey, they'll learn that themselves after getting to know each other better. trying to force it or encourage it just gets. weird. and bad. and very weird. and usually has the complete opposite effect.
Or one or both of them will continue to be totally oblivious even after they've known each other for years. But still, much better than making things get weird and bad by trying to force it!
Hope you're in a better TTRPG situation now. I've been in a couple of games that would be at home here, and know it can be very difficult to pull yourself out of a game if you're friends with anyone involved.
25:20 - and yet TV shows and movies frequently portray that it's *perfectly acceptable* to try to set up your friends with each other _without asking either about it first_ - small wonder people don't get basic things when the media we're given to consume is toxic. I often think that script writers and directors spend so much time locked in little cells far away from the outside world that they have no idea how to interact with actual humans.
I'm sorry but the "Sphinx Harvey" idea had me laughing my ass off. Idc how serious a game was, something like that would be harmless fun imo especially if it was fun for the DM to run.
In the First story, Arc, the DM isn't trying either. It either runs the sandbox, or he's gone. If the player is trying, what harm is it to sprinkle tavern looking for help people ever so often not every game has to be lets play Clue to find the Plot
Personally, I would never have engaged in a campaign that takes the "if your character dies, you are kicked from the campaign" way of play anyways. If you're into that, then that's great for you, but it leads to a ton of problems and I feel misses the point of playing the game--which is to spend time with your friends. I like me friends. I'm not going to sign up for a system where I, or anyone else for that matter, can be excommunicated over dice rolls. That is silly.
Do we really need to have the conversation that if you're a teenager around the ages of 15 as wizard and presumably the paladin op are YOU SHOULD NOT BE IN KINK COMMUNITIES yes 100% glad they know themselves but your 14 go do your homework 💀
"Wait, the player wanted encumbrance rules?" Same reason someone might want to play Fallout: New Vegas in Survival mode. Adding in things that seem tedious or unnecessarily difficult to most people can provide a challenge to overcome to others.
im definitely on mr.figher and ms.wizard's side in that last story, DM was violating their consent by trying to instigate sexual situations between their characters and they were right to bail but like.... doesn't anyone else think it's a little weird for a pair of 15-16 year olds kids to be referring to themselves as BDSM sub/doms???
also, if i had a nickle for every dnd horror story i've heard that involves a DM learning about a player's kinks and trying to awkwardly force them into the game, i'd have 3 nickles, which isn't a lot but weird it's happened 3 times
@@bunnybean77you'd be surprised how common it is for middle schoolers/high schoolers who somehow stumbled across BDSM stuff online (usually due to fandom + unrestricted Internet access, or even sometimes memes) try to either jokingly or just innocently ascribe terms to themselves. This happened to me as early as like. 6th grade. Tbh I think it's kinda harmless as long as said kids don't literally tell everyone online about it and keep it to themselves, since it can lead to them being taken advantage of due to their lack of real understanding
I mean kinda, but I was getting interested in kink and BDSM and stuff at that age. I'm in my mid 20s now. You definitely shouldn't be defining yourself by those labels or archetypes at that age, or interacting with adult kink communities at ALL but I think its perfectly normal to explore it. If I hadn't had access to the internet, I just wouldn't have had the language to express the way I felt or would've that the things that excited me weren't just a "me" thing. As long as they're being safe about it I don't think it's inherently harmful. But the "being safe about it" and staying out of adult spaces parts are verrrryyy important
It's one thing to use D&D to help people you think might vibe meet and get to know each other. That kind of matchmaking is all well and good, and the worst you'll get out of it is one or both parties saying they aren't feeling it, which is fine so long as the matchmaker respects it. Matchmaking is about creating opportunities for connections, not forcing them. What the guy in that last story did was smash two friends together like barbie dolls while going 'NOW KIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISS!', which is very much not the same thing.
Dude the last story where the DM tried to be ops wingman, yeah! That was not okay, and very weird. To op it probably felt like the DM was screwing around with both op and wizard for his amusement because he knows ops and wizards kink. My groups general rule when it comes to someones preferred kink....DO NOT TELL ANYONE, MOT EVEN YOUR BEST FRIENDS. Because situations like THIS can happen and just make things incredibly awkward and tense.
Well played by OP in 4, using the kicked on death rule to get both players out of a quite frankly *very* uncomfortable situation. Dm frankly needed a kick to the jewels for attempting to force a match. As stated several times that ain't how it works at all
I know I have left this similar text on other videos, but I really enjoy hearing about other peoples horror stories. I enjoy your presentation and videos. Thank you.
I'm glad I'm not the only one confused and a bit concerned at teenagers being in D/s dynamics in the comment section but that DM sounds like when people try to set up two gay people for no other reason than the fact that they're gay but even more boundary pushing and creepy.
Yeah, it's one thing if you describe YOUR OWN character that way. It's another thing entirely if someone is asking weirdly specific questions... As to variant encumbrance...I have actually willingly used it once (maybe more than once? so rarely I honestly don't recall) in a solo run (no DM), but that was because I was running an extremely difficult and gritty game for myself. He started with nothing and had to escape from a prison; CRs were MUCH higher than normal, all the guards had half-plate or full-plate armor and two-handed weapons like greatswords and halberds...so basically if he got caught, he was one dead duck (which he eventually did coming up some stairs with a bad stealth roll). So, that wasn't by any means a "normal" game. It was meant to be gritty as hell, and it was meant to see what I could do. (I like running solo games in general, but it also helps for testing out various ideas.) As to the bdsm story...consent is absolutely necessary in ALL...uh, activities...but bdsm especially because it requires a level of trust even more "vanilla" couples might not have. We all joke about safe words sometimes but they actually do exist for a reason, and clearly this DM was one of those who just completely misunderstood the whole lifestyle. He probably knew about it from fun-time videos and memes alone.
@@ArcCaravan I actually run mine usually like a log or a journal, so it's a lot of writing because otherwise I'm just talking to myself and then forget everything I did, lol.
Intro really shows where to draw the line for "immersion". 1st story makes me question why not just have the linear guy just be a tiebreaker. Definitely makes me question if the rest of the table couldn't convince the guy to better compromise or just continue without him? 2nd story was a good evil character forced into a worse one. Glad it didn't have the OP who admitted he could be at fault not het completely blamed, which feels like a common response to those kinds of stories. 3rd was good on DM for realizing he should have kicked the guy sooner. Almost amusing how the cis WASP uses the same slurs he complains about his cis WASP boss without realizing the hypocrisy. Almost. 4th story ending is how I imagine I'd respond to certain horrible campaigns. Surprised this was more about poorly matchmaking than just the DM attempting seduction of humiliation. At least compared to other fetish exploitation tabletop horror stories where the goal is more obvious.
1st story: is the rest of the group enjoying the game either. If this whole group is 'drop down a dungeon and run it' playstyle then the DM probably should drop out. 'Linear guy' isn't in the wrong and probably feels stuck because 'this is what my friends are playing today... can we roll dice soon?'
I swear I'm cursed in a really weird way. Every single time I've ever played a paladin, they contract lycanthropy before level 5. Other than in videogames like wrath of the righteous, I've never once played a paladin who didn't get turned into a lycanthrope of some description, every other class doesn't get this treatment, but my paladins... my paladins are cursed xD
'If your character dies you're kicked from the campaign' just feels unnecessarily hostile to me, but if everyone consents to Blackleaf Rules... okaaaaaaay....
I don't know about setting friends up. That is so sketch most of the time. I've only been one being set up, and when asked for consent, it's been met with a long-winded sales pitch once I've already said no. Maybe it's just my bad experiences with it, but yuck.
Encumbrance can make the game more fun sometimes We played a WW2 one-shot once, we all showed up with 6 characters each, all in different squads so when one squad was wiped we moved to a different part of the battle to the next squad But we were playing with encumbrance so every bullet had weight to it so you had to choose your loadout carefully It was CRAZY fun, had one character that was a Wind Talker, used a BAR and a hatchet, one of my favorite characters ever He died in like 30 minutes lmao
What’s with all these DMs trying to run low magic worlds? At this point, I see this as almost a red flag. I think it’s cool to have AREAS/REGIONS of a world that are low magic but the entire world? What are people afraid of?
@@Pablo360able No cutting corners required. DnD is a good system, but not everyone who likes it, likes high magic settings. It can accommodate both easily.
@@Pablo360able Or they think DnD can be adapted to a lot of stories. Is there anything really wrong with successfully fitting a square peg in a round hole?
I kinda made my player a lycanthrope without consent. He took a sip of "Beast Blood", special concoction that forces a connection with nature's energy, and leads to lycanthropy of your choosing. You cannot turn it down, but you have full control and can essentially design your beast form Before someone (if anyone) asks: I told him his character finds it a little suspicious looking and smelling. It might been too little of a warning, but honestly the player, although unsure at first, loves it now
Story 1: Just... don't have anything plot progress wise happen at the tavern? Have it be a reflection scene or allow the players to make some contacts that can help them out when they do agree to go somewhere? I don't understand how one player suggesting to go to a tavern because nobody else can agree on a lead forces a playstyle on the GM.
Yay! A Dom who understands and respects consent! You'd be surprised how often it's the other way around with both subs and Dom/Dommes. I've met fellow kinksters approaching retirement who still don't get the basics of that fundamental idea. It's always refreshing to hear somebody got the memo. 😊👍
Funny how in relationships/SA related posts in subreddits if you say something bad about any but in particular this kink they al jump "uh but they *ALL* understand conscent!"
@@Lionwoman You'd think the first thing anyone would come to understand would be consent. Unfortunately, even now a lot of people think kink means tossing consent out the window. A lot of this is caused by 50 shades, unfortunately. It sucks. Most of my friends were subs who I had to remind constantly to reinforce their boundaries when their "Doms" should have made their limits a priority. I'm a Dom , but I cater play to my partner's needs and I require regular conversation to feel comfortable going forward. That DM really didn't know the first thing about D/s.
i been playing the game sponsoring you for a bit several months the vampires are new but the lycanis have been around for a long while the new clan i have yet to get but i"m looking foreword to them, but its a pretty cool game honestly. as for the role-play opening if the person was like ... a blind tabaxi i could see them needing to know the scent of the character to tell them apart from enemies or some such but otherwise... yeah thats really weird and id be wanting to smack him upside the head.
Had large DnD Group, Married my Favorite Player. ::RASS:: Sometimes it does work (Of course nothing creepy was done in game, and the romance was kept out of game). It can work, don't be afraid to try. Don't be creep, Don't whine of you don't get your way (makes things worse), don't be Verbally or physicaly forceful A-Hole In game or Out of Game. Make sure you have more than just the game in common, because if the two of you run out of time for gaming in the future, it still helps to have a lot of other things in common. -DM who married a player and had two kids.
"It's crucial to my roleplay that I know how you smell." "Uh, OK, my character's just cracked a massive fart. She's been living in the wilderness on pretty much a meat-only diet for the last week so pretty much "pure carnivore fart", here. Do you own a dog or a cat?"
I've said this already on other videos but the Ranger's story feels like we're only getting a sugar coated version of the events. Every time he says he talked to another player out of character to work things out, notice all of it is done with the other players or the DM making a compromise and not OP. Every example he's given has the outcome be better for himself. He legit tied up another player character and tortured them and THEN spoke to the player out of character to find a solution and he doesn't see how he was being disruptive? Yeah I'd complain if I joined in a game and my character just gets tortured and had to swear loyalty to a person they just met. The werepanther thing seems like it was hint to retire the character to be a villain, even OP said that was an option given to him and it reads like he was the one excited to try being a werepanther and pushed the excitement onto the DM. The whole story doesn't read right to me and I feel like we're missing a lot of other times where the Ranger was acting out of line. It just feels very cherry picked. Of course there is a lot of bad dming going on with not talking to OP about behaviour or working out a solution before just straight up killing them, but I just don't believe the story we're getting from OP is the main problem. But that's just what I think, and we're only getting one side so who knows.
The agency issue is an issue. I have told my party up front that the game is reliant on their desire to be involved and explore, and if they don't then there's not much adventure. I understand that sometimes there's a slow moment where you just have to say "And then orcs attack" to give them something to do or a lead if they're stumped, but I have had parties who won't act unless the adventure comes to *them* and, well, its entirely disappointing.
But...how do they know where to _find_ the adventure, so they can go there? If they don't _hear_ about an owlbear infestation, or a lost master-thief's treasure, or a ruined and haunted mine, or a bunch of mysterious disappearances in the next town, how do they know where to seek such a thing out? I know that I've heard some players will decide to set up a shop in town or something, but that's not exactly an "adventure," is it? (And if I wanted to roleplay a small business startup, I wouldn't want to do it in a world full of magic and monsters and other, much more interesting than commerce, things.) Unless I'm on a team created for, say, heist plots, then I'm not sure how "finding adventure" works. (Even then, the DM would have to provide some potential marks to scope out, no?) The DM _knows_ the world...the players don't. For the players to want to explore, there has to be places that sound interesting TO explore, and the players have to be _told_ about them. Gimme a map with interesting destinations, or some rumors of trouble or treasure somewhere near, and I can choose between them...but I can't know what things are there to seek without the DM _providing_ them first.
@@ShinyAvalon how do they know? NPCs tell them the main story and others talk about events happening around town in the nearby area. I cannot imagine a game that is just a blank void and you expect players to just act, no. Any game should have leads and NPCs who guide the players. I did in my experience, they were hired by one to do a job but he lacked resources to finish it, which segued into another storyline whereon they met the people with said resources, all who aimed to use the adventurers to further their own goals and outright asked the players to help, and even hired them for a follow up job afterwards. All the while, in my world, NPCs were talking about how shops were going missing and how the dead were rumored to rise from the battlefields of the war that recently ended. On top of *that*, I invited the players to help create towns for their backstories and they all knew of at least two other places on the map where they could venture to. And lastly, I as the DM made it clear what the options were. I provided a quest list myself and informed them of how I suggested going about solving the problem, and I was clear to add "but you can always do something I haven't thought of, just let me know." Sometimes players are just awkward or easily overwhelmed by a game type, and sometimes they want the adventure to be obviously in front of them. Different strokes for different folks.
@@ShinyAvalon sorry. That was a lot. Tl;DR, I don't know how much clearer I can be than saying "The NPC has asked you to do a task at that location," or even the broader tasks like "Help the NPC convince the council to repair their ruined ship."
@@MrBoltstrike - Oh, okay then. If they had multiple plot hooks lying around, then I can see why it would be frustrating for a DM to have them decide to just sit still. Perhaps the party should have made a list of them, and then asked the passive player to choose from the list. Yeah, someone who's comfortable playing "slice of life" things might not be the best one to be asked "What do you _want_ to do?"
Idk why people don’t like encumbering rules. I enjoy having to think about what I’m carrying and come up with ways like use it carts or wagons to hold or keep additional stuff. Maybe I’m just weird like that tho lol
Im more concerned about teenagers practicing bondage at, what, fifteen and sixteen. Where the hell do you get the stuff to do that at that age? Ot is it mostly just confined to online roleplay?
Unpopular opinion: I actually love encumbrance, both as a DM and player 😆. I feel like, when done well, it adds a perpetual puzzle element, especially to loot heavy games. Pirate campaign? How much cargo can you salvage from the ship you destroyed? What will you have to sacrifice to make room in your hold? Just defeated a dragon with an enormous hoard, the ceiling is coming down. How much wealth can you carry? How much time are you willing to sacrifice to gather it? Are you willing to risk a slower walking speed in favor of wealth? Etc. I think it's a blast and is an easy way to add stakes to rewards. Only works if everyone at the table is on board for that kind of game play though.
In games I run, I don't worry about encumbrance unless what the players are attempting to do is absurd, like hauling off the dragon's horde in their belt pouch. If they attempt to do something that seems counter to reality, then we consult rules and find out, yep, they cannot do that -- or sometimes that they can. Go figure. As a player, though, I'm with you. I always track my own encumbrance, ammo [even normal arrows], where my equipment is stored on my person or pack animal and so on. I do this even if the DM is not asking for it because I want to be above board on everything I do. That potion of fire breathing is in my pack? Oh darn, guess I am not getting to it while I'm being beat on by the troll. Next time, though, that potion is getting tied to my belt.
Not what I want to run: it's not much of a compromise if you never give the player what they want. Like not even once? Take them to the inn and have someone from one of the quests you offered show up and say "HELP! This way towards the plot." Clearly no one wanted to be the one to choose since they left it up to the person who made it clear they don't ever want to choose. I don't understand how you're so averse to railroading you can't even do it just once to make your players happy?
I listened to it a second time and noticed that none of the other players said they wanted to play it this way either, they said they “weren’t really strict about what they expected and were content letting [OP] do things the way [OP] wanted”. It’s entirely possible that they all felt the same way but only the one player was honest. I feel like you need enthusiastic buy in to run a game this way and not just “okay, whatever you want.”
@@ArcCaravan which to me says something if they all know he's not the decisions guy. I'm with Thezmage here. I think they wanted him to say what they all felt. But we may never know~~~~
On the player wanting encumbrance in their game; yeah I can see it. Whole aspects of play can stem from trying to solve the 'treasure is heavy' problem that adventurers face. Pack animals, carts and wagons, followers and hirelings, tenser's floating disc, container sizes, bags of holding, block and tackle, gem vs coin weights How to get treasure of varying sizes and weights out of the dungeon and back to town. Building a stronghold for storing wealth you cannot reasonably carry from adventure to adventure. The amount of room in your bags for adventuring gear for getting INTO the dungeon, and the amount of space for carrying stuff out. Having a STR based character in the party even though everyone else is spell flinging all day long, you still want a bro who can at least lift. Handwaving away encumbrance I view in the same way as handwaving away time tracking, or limited resources. It sounds minor and inconsequential on a surface level, but just adds to the game only ever being a just combat simulator when no obstacles exist outside of combat.
Re: not what I wanted to run. Just tell them that the tavern is closed for refurbishment/dead. Make it clear your world is not a computer game. Direct them back to your other story lines if they enquire for work via another route. That or just fast forward time for each time they "click the wait button" saying how nothing happens but maybe the main plots advancing without them. No need to make a massive thing about it. Tavern dungeon only players are obviously going to struggle with imagination, which is unfortunate but you can help them get better by steering them in the right direction and having the other players lead the way. Tavern dungeon only players are not likely imaginative enough to be that conniving. .
One issue with matchmaking in D&D is the same as why trying to carry out a real life relationship in game: most players aren’t playing themselves in game. So trying to set up some kind of relationship in game will never translate to a relationship outside of game. That said, using the game to INTRODUCE two players is mostly harmless so long as it doesn’t go father then that. The problem in this case was that the DM wasn’t actually trying to set them up as much as using his players as a means to indulge in his own voyeuristic fetish
The original flavor for grave clerics doesn't really read as all that villainous; they have an anti undead stance and are more about the shepherding the passage of souls from the world of the living to the afterlife (like a priest of Hermes could be a grave cleric because that was one of his jobs in the Greek mythology). Death Domain is originally flavored with antagonists in mind but I don't think that it's that much of a stretch for a death cleric to be non evil.
The last story... Yikes. Just because you have the same taste as someone else, it doesn't mean that you'll be interested in them. And even if you're interested in them, it doesn't mean that you want to bring the romance into your DnD game. And even if you want to bring the romance into DnD, it still doesn't mean that you want the RP to walk on the edge of ERP. And even if you want to walk on the edge of ERP, you might not want it to happen because the DM forces it into... battle scenarios???? It's the time when your grandma tries to set you up with her friend's grandkid, because 'Oh, you both study XY', only on steroids and little blue pills.
I’m gonna be honest, the DM/OP from the first story reads as the one who isn’t trying to me. Especially considering they’re the one giving the story, and thus inevitably framing it in the way that makes them look best. Here’s how the story is reading to me: DM joins a group of preexisting friends, and is thus kind of the outsider and hasn’t developed trust with all the group yet. When they discover their play style mismatch with one of the players, the DM demands that the player play their way or not at all. The player goes along with this, as the campaign proceeds the way the DM wants. At this point, the player is the only one compromising; the DM is making no concessions to make the player feel more comfortable. This DM feels a lot like the kind of person who’s convinced that they can make people like the way they play by being rigid and forcing things to be the way they want. The group throws their friend a bone and gives them a chance to make a choice (which is supposed to be the whole point of being a “sandbox DM,” right?), and the player, who has been forced to play a way that isn’t quite comfortable for the sake of getting to play with their friends, asks to be given the chance to play closer to the way they like one time. The DM, instead of being flexible and accommodating this, immediately quits the session and goes to Reddit to complain that the whole game has been ruined. Compromise is a two-way street, and what I’m seeing is that the player has been compromising by playing the way the DM wants, something the DM has said they refuse to do themself for the player’s sake. The DM’s only “compromise” as far as I can tell is not kicking a player out of a preexisting friend group for wanting to get to play a different way. That’s not a real compromise. Maybe I’m misreading the situation. It seems like a lot of people read it differently from me. But it bothers me that even being told the story from the DM’s perspective exclusively, it really seems like the DM might be the bigger part of the problem here. Imagine the scenario reversed: a DM wants his party to go to the tavern and wait for instruction, and quits the second a player wants to explore choices elsewhere. There’d be no hesitation in calling that DM an asshole.
I personally don't mind evil characters, though I am very cautious when other people play them because I find it requires VERY specific criteria to be met and a very strong player to pull it off. I've played an evil character in the past where he for the most part acts evil when there is little consequence & may often hold back what he really wants to do because at the end of the day he had a reason to be with the party (they were good in combat and would help with his revenge. Enemy of my enemy is my friend stuff). I once secretly cast dominate person on a random no-name barkeep and telepathically commanded him to stab himself in the neck cause he rubbed my character the wrong way. None of the other players ever found out cause I secretly told the DM and they even thought the BBEG did it somehow.
Opening was creepy, but there is something to be said for going beyond just a visual description. Do they sound or smell weird? Do they appear to have smooth or rough features and clothing? Fill the senses to aid imagination. Just don't be a creep about it.
What amused me is the creep actually did his homework about medieval peasants not being filthy and unwashed. Shame he only used his knowledge to be weird
I feel both are at fault in the story with the lycanthrope, but mostly the DM. I get the impression that the DM was more worried about getting to play with the new lycanthrope rules that he was about running a game that actually worked and was fun, and this is what set things on a downward spiral, but the player earned some blame for making things weird for the new player..
I think it's sad, personally. Like, that creepshow was clearly trying to get off on their discomfort, and it ended up affecting their lives outside of the game.
I dont really agree with the DM about not doing any let call it "Pub Quests" i mean i see nothing wrong with a side quest or two that is pick up a at pub or help wanted ad.
To that first dm i would say: man, it's your job to adapt to the playera, which are a majority. I enjoy whatever my players do as long as they make me laugh or surprise me. Maybe you're a way too stiff dm. Or maybe your players are incredibly outrageous, but It doesnt seem like it
No you shouldn't always compromise. You told him you don't run that type a game he agreed to adapt and play your style of game. He agreed to it you should of just said no and remind that he said he would've tried to adapt.
Ranger is NTA. If another character's background is that he killed your family, that conflict is on other character not you. If the DM forces you to be a cannibal lycanthrope and then kicks you out for being a cannibal lycanthrope that's a nightmare DM problem.
I like how Ranger was hateful in-game while the player IRL is trying to make the party interactions work out as best as possible without betraying their characters.
Also it didn't come across that Ranger was of evil alignment but that if he accepted the curse it would change his alignment allowing DM to make it into an NPC but resisting the curse and role-playing that it is slowly corrupting and changing his actions as a side effect is a clever way to get around that rule as written.
DM: "Your character is too disruptive."
You mean the character who YOU forced to be a follower of the god of hatred and a cannibal? The DM basically made this character semi-unplayable and killed the PC for it. WTF?
21:57 'playing "sneaking" by shouting "you don't see me!" at enemies and doing an intimidation check.' That's actually such a funny concept 🤣🤣🤣
It's like that one scene in a Batman cartoon where a henchmen opens the door on Batman, then just closes it and pretends he didn't see anything.
Reminds me of a fantasy class archetype I heard about, a rogue who exchanged stealth and finesse for intimidation and brute strength. Sounds fun and interesting to play.
@@tacticalplanner Mans knows his place in the world, and that place is NOT fighting Batman.
[barbarian]: "I roll to sneak."
[DM]: "No good, and now the guards see you."
[Barbarian]: "Okay then I roll to intimidate and shout 'YOU DON'T SEE ME, TURN AROUND.'" *rolls a nat 20*
[DM]: "Yep, that'll do it. The guards quickly turn back around looking quite startled. They proceed to ignore your presence."
I really really like this
That Ranger story almost sounded like the DM wanted to teach him a lesson for wanting to play an evil character but the Ranger just kept rolling with it in good faith and the DM just ended up giving up and killing him off lol
Bro Sphinx Harvey is the funniest puzzle scenario I've heard, I'd kill for that
I play very serious RPG games, but damn the Sphinx doing family feud is genius.
Now I'm imagining a sphinx hosting a gameshow.
@@LoneWanderSpark303 WHEEL! OF! SORCERY!
@@chazzwozzio here’s a twist!
It’s the deck of many things but not as bad or overpowered
They just share the same name
Even better if they had the same reactions to the out-of-pocket answers that turn out to be correct
How about a sphinx doing an Alex Trebeck impression and hosting some kind of DnD edition of Jeopardy?
Second Story: Actual story aside, I like that player's interpretation of "Neutral Evil", as it's how I think of that alignment as well. Not a villainous or malicious person, just someone who's selfish and kind of immoral when it comes to getting what they want. I do think that forcing more evil onto the character is garbage. I wonder if it was the DM's way of punishing the player for playing that alignment, by being like "Oh, you want to be evil? Sure, I'll make you evil. To the point where it becomes a problem for the other players." Very weird way to go with that.
My interpretation of Neutral Evil is more along the lines of Apathetic Narcissism. Doesn’t really care about anyone or anything, but as soon as it directly effects the character themself then all bets are off and everything considered evil is officially on the table until the threat is dealt with. Well, not everything considered evil, there are some very hard lines that I as a player refuse to cross both in and out of game
First story: I think the DM probably wrote himself into a corner when he wanted to try out the cool new lycantropy stuff but it ended up interfering with his campaign, so he just killed Ranger to reset things.
Because, I don't know, just writing in a cure for lycanthropy was harder than writing in an execution?
Last story: Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it sounds like the DM was doing more than just trying to match a couple of friends with related fetishes; it seemed like he was trying to set up them up to play out his own private porn fantasy.
Don't try to set up your friends into getting into relationships. While it may sometimes work, you're far more likely to ruin the friendship between all three of you if it falls through.
The third story is 100% on the DM. It was *their* idea to dump all this on OP while OP was trying to find the happy middle where everyone wins. The DM had to have been prepared for dumping a new Goddess on a PC then lycanthropy that they didn't want because they wanted to test something out
While the Ranger was a disruptive PC (the player was trying to be accommodating), the GM was the one who okayed it. And then allowed the lycanthropy issue - what did he expect when the LE character starts eating people because of a forced condition?
"I smell like ever other person in the tavern." boom there you go
"I smell like your breath."
Let them handle the repercussions.
@@tabeechey That would bring out some serious sexual things though...those creepers would spin this badly. Not going to say it here as it is very NSFW.
@@StudlyFudd13 eh let em, just raises questions about how into themselves they are
@@tabeechey Not what I meant at all. (yeah my breath smells like you cause i just ate you out ;) ) i said i wasn't gonna write it but you needed an example to get what I meant.
@@StudlyFudd13 oh I imagine this weirdo would say even worse. Let em. People like this will find a way to be gross no matter what you say.
I know teenagers are in the age of discovering themselves and such, but man it's so weird to see two people at the age of 16 and 15 being identified as "dom" and "sub" respectively.
My thoughts exactly! Like what the hell? With 15 years old, you are still trying to figure out want you like. Geez. Especially girls often just go with the flow because they are too insecure to voice what they like and what not. Calling a 15 year old a sub is wrong on so many levels
Yeah like teenagers having sex is nothing new but having them in such an involving commitment needing constant trust and awareness that usually most healthy BDSM relationships rely on does make the mind boggle.
Phew, someone else caught up on this too. It's very, very weird that the DM knew this highly sexual fact about a 15 year old...
People generally know if their sexual fantasies lean a certain way by then, at least.
@@ShinyAvalon Even if you have certain fantasies, it doesn't make you a sub. And thinking of a 15 year old in that way is very very weird.
Ranger story: I feel like everyone, maybe more the DM, wanted Op's character to be more evil than Op wanted. I feel like a lot was being pushed onto Op, and not so much the other players. And shouldn't people backstories who connect be agreed upon by all involved parties? Did I miss where Op agreed to having Rouge be the one who killed his character's wife??
That last story: Even if the players agreed to nsfw content in the game, the hard R is something that I believe should be left out. It honestly disgusting, and I think people should side-eye those who want it. The DM clearly had a far worse and different idea of what BDS and M actually is.
Already saw the Ranger story. While i understand the DM trying to do damage control to save their campaign, they brought that upon themselves. DM literally chose to made the PC become a cannibal murderer via the lycanthropy mechanics. They could've have changed that to better accommodate the campaign. The player even wanted to solve the situations in peaceful way.
how to set people up the good way: introduce them to each other, possibly by bringing them to some kinda boardgame night or DnD, and then do *absolutely nothing more than that*. if they happen to be a match like you thought, hey, they'll learn that themselves after getting to know each other better. trying to force it or encourage it just gets. weird. and bad. and very weird. and usually has the complete opposite effect.
Or one or both of them will continue to be totally oblivious even after they've known each other for years. But still, much better than making things get weird and bad by trying to force it!
Wow. I find this channel and less than a month later my story shows up on it
Idk if thats a good or bad thing
I'm instantly curious which story yet aknowledge you are not obligated to answer.
Hope you're in a better TTRPG situation now. I've been in a couple of games that would be at home here, and know it can be very difficult to pull yourself out of a game if you're friends with anyone involved.
One minute in and the creep vibes are going down my spine. Damn that’s a record.
lmao "visible asexual confusion" is a mood
25:20 - and yet TV shows and movies frequently portray that it's *perfectly acceptable* to try to set up your friends with each other _without asking either about it first_ - small wonder people don't get basic things when the media we're given to consume is toxic. I often think that script writers and directors spend so much time locked in little cells far away from the outside world that they have no idea how to interact with actual humans.
"I am seventeen years old.
I am also into BDSM and I am a Dom"
That flag is taken right out of Xi's hand.
I'm sorry but the "Sphinx Harvey" idea had me laughing my ass off. Idc how serious a game was, something like that would be harmless fun imo especially if it was fun for the DM to run.
In the First story, Arc, the DM isn't trying either. It either runs the sandbox, or he's gone. If the player is trying, what harm is it to sprinkle tavern looking for help people ever so often not every game has to be lets play Clue to find the Plot
You know, we've seen Crispy the UA-camr plenty of times. But I don't think we've ever seen Crispy the rat without his mask.
Plot twist It's not a mask
@@thundergod9696 - Are you my mummy?
@@ShinyAvalon that was a great episode wasn't
@@thundergod9696 - Indeed it was.
Personally, I would never have engaged in a campaign that takes the "if your character dies, you are kicked from the campaign" way of play anyways. If you're into that, then that's great for you, but it leads to a ton of problems and I feel misses the point of playing the game--which is to spend time with your friends. I like me friends. I'm not going to sign up for a system where I, or anyone else for that matter, can be excommunicated over dice rolls. That is silly.
Do we really need to have the conversation that if you're a teenager around the ages of 15 as wizard and presumably the paladin op are YOU SHOULD NOT BE IN KINK COMMUNITIES yes 100% glad they know themselves but your 14 go do your homework 💀
"Wait, the player wanted encumbrance rules?"
Same reason someone might want to play Fallout: New Vegas in Survival mode. Adding in things that seem tedious or unnecessarily difficult to most people can provide a challenge to overcome to others.
A lot of Dm's ignore encomberance rules, food rations and water and then people wonder why there is no exploration in DnD.
im definitely on mr.figher and ms.wizard's side in that last story, DM was violating their consent by trying to instigate sexual situations between their characters and they were right to bail
but like.... doesn't anyone else think it's a little weird for a pair of 15-16 year olds kids to be referring to themselves as BDSM sub/doms???
also, if i had a nickle for every dnd horror story i've heard that involves a DM learning about a player's kinks and trying to awkwardly force them into the game, i'd have 3 nickles, which isn't a lot but weird it's happened 3 times
I came here to say this and am still boggled tht I had to scroll almost to the end of the comments to find another one.
@@bunnybean77you'd be surprised how common it is for middle schoolers/high schoolers who somehow stumbled across BDSM stuff online (usually due to fandom + unrestricted Internet access, or even sometimes memes) try to either jokingly or just innocently ascribe terms to themselves. This happened to me as early as like. 6th grade. Tbh I think it's kinda harmless as long as said kids don't literally tell everyone online about it and keep it to themselves, since it can lead to them being taken advantage of due to their lack of real understanding
I mean kinda, but I was getting interested in kink and BDSM and stuff at that age. I'm in my mid 20s now. You definitely shouldn't be defining yourself by those labels or archetypes at that age, or interacting with adult kink communities at ALL but I think its perfectly normal to explore it. If I hadn't had access to the internet, I just wouldn't have had the language to express the way I felt or would've that the things that excited me weren't just a "me" thing. As long as they're being safe about it I don't think it's inherently harmful. But the "being safe about it" and staying out of adult spaces parts are verrrryyy important
It's one thing to use D&D to help people you think might vibe meet and get to know each other. That kind of matchmaking is all well and good, and the worst you'll get out of it is one or both parties saying they aren't feeling it, which is fine so long as the matchmaker respects it. Matchmaking is about creating opportunities for connections, not forcing them.
What the guy in that last story did was smash two friends together like barbie dolls while going 'NOW KIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISS!', which is very much not the same thing.
Dude the last story where the DM tried to be ops wingman, yeah! That was not okay, and very weird. To op it probably felt like the DM was screwing around with both op and wizard for his amusement because he knows ops and wizards kink.
My groups general rule when it comes to someones preferred kink....DO NOT TELL ANYONE, MOT EVEN YOUR BEST FRIENDS. Because situations like THIS can happen and just make things incredibly awkward and tense.
Killing him in the end without talking it out and without giving him chance to escape is crazy
Well played by OP in 4, using the kicked on death rule to get both players out of a quite frankly *very* uncomfortable situation. Dm frankly needed a kick to the jewels for attempting to force a match. As stated several times that ain't how it works at all
I know I have left this similar text on other videos, but I really enjoy hearing about other peoples horror stories. I enjoy your presentation and videos. Thank you.
Evil played right can be a really fun experience, just putting that out there.
I'm glad I'm not the only one confused and a bit concerned at teenagers being in D/s dynamics in the comment section but that DM sounds like when people try to set up two gay people for no other reason than the fact that they're gay but even more boundary pushing and creepy.
Yeah, it's one thing if you describe YOUR OWN character that way.
It's another thing entirely if someone is asking weirdly specific questions...
As to variant encumbrance...I have actually willingly used it once (maybe more than once? so rarely I honestly don't recall) in a solo run (no DM), but that was because I was running an extremely difficult and gritty game for myself. He started with nothing and had to escape from a prison; CRs were MUCH higher than normal, all the guards had half-plate or full-plate armor and two-handed weapons like greatswords and halberds...so basically if he got caught, he was one dead duck (which he eventually did coming up some stairs with a bad stealth roll). So, that wasn't by any means a "normal" game. It was meant to be gritty as hell, and it was meant to see what I could do. (I like running solo games in general, but it also helps for testing out various ideas.)
As to the bdsm story...consent is absolutely necessary in ALL...uh, activities...but bdsm especially because it requires a level of trust even more "vanilla" couples might not have. We all joke about safe words sometimes but they actually do exist for a reason, and clearly this DM was one of those who just completely misunderstood the whole lifestyle. He probably knew about it from fun-time videos and memes alone.
Solo games sound fascinating. Like a good way to write a book or scene.
@@ArcCaravan I actually run mine usually like a log or a journal, so it's a lot of writing because otherwise I'm just talking to myself and then forget everything I did, lol.
Yes Crispy, it does seem that the pattern tends to be the second or third session.
Kinda makes session zero seem less like a quick solution.
@@ArcCaravan It's not always going to work unfortunately.
Random Megalovania scared the crap out of me.
Last story: I don't want to judge (mostly because I am on the ACE spectrum myself) but how old were they to be into BDSM??
Intro really shows where to draw the line for "immersion".
1st story makes me question why not just have the linear guy just be a tiebreaker. Definitely makes me question if the rest of the table couldn't convince the guy to better compromise or just continue without him?
2nd story was a good evil character forced into a worse one. Glad it didn't have the OP who admitted he could be at fault not het completely blamed, which feels like a common response to those kinds of stories.
3rd was good on DM for realizing he should have kicked the guy sooner. Almost amusing how the cis WASP uses the same slurs he complains about his cis WASP boss without realizing the hypocrisy. Almost.
4th story ending is how I imagine I'd respond to certain horrible campaigns. Surprised this was more about poorly matchmaking than just the DM attempting seduction of humiliation. At least compared to other fetish exploitation tabletop horror stories where the goal is more obvious.
1st story: is the rest of the group enjoying the game either. If this whole group is 'drop down a dungeon and run it' playstyle then the DM probably should drop out. 'Linear guy' isn't in the wrong and probably feels stuck because 'this is what my friends are playing today... can we roll dice soon?'
@@davidlewis5312 Then the other players should have voiced their opinion.
@@ArcCaravan absolutely and really how many of these stories are just herd mentality in the end.
Oh good lord wtf instant kick, like why? WHY would someone think that was okay? @_@
I swear I'm cursed in a really weird way. Every single time I've ever played a paladin, they contract lycanthropy before level 5.
Other than in videogames like wrath of the righteous, I've never once played a paladin who didn't get turned into a lycanthrope of some description, every other class doesn't get this treatment, but my paladins... my paladins are cursed xD
'If your character dies you're kicked from the campaign' just feels unnecessarily hostile to me, but if everyone consents to Blackleaf Rules... okaaaaaaay....
I like variant encumbrance because it makes strength a little bit more useful
nearly had a fucking heart attack when I heard megalovania
bro got PTSD
I don't know about setting friends up. That is so sketch most of the time. I've only been one being set up, and when asked for consent, it's been met with a long-winded sales pitch once I've already said no. Maybe it's just my bad experiences with it, but yuck.
Encumbrance can make the game more fun sometimes
We played a WW2 one-shot once, we all showed up with 6 characters each, all in different squads so when one squad was wiped we moved to a different part of the battle to the next squad
But we were playing with encumbrance so every bullet had weight to it so you had to choose your loadout carefully
It was CRAZY fun, had one character that was a Wind Talker, used a BAR and a hatchet, one of my favorite characters ever
He died in like 30 minutes lmao
What’s with all these DMs trying to run low magic worlds? At this point, I see this as almost a red flag. I think it’s cool to have AREAS/REGIONS of a world that are low magic but the entire world? What are people afraid of?
they don’t know there are systems other than D&D
You can do low magic DnD just fine. Adjust your expectations, use less monsters that specifically need magic to defeat. There boom done.
@@tuomasronnberg5244 And if you cut enough corners off a square peg you can fit it in a round hole.
@@Pablo360able No cutting corners required. DnD is a good system, but not everyone who likes it, likes high magic settings. It can accommodate both easily.
@@Pablo360able Or they think DnD can be adapted to a lot of stories. Is there anything really wrong with successfully fitting a square peg in a round hole?
I kinda made my player a lycanthrope without consent. He took a sip of "Beast Blood", special concoction that forces a connection with nature's energy, and leads to lycanthropy of your choosing. You cannot turn it down, but you have full control and can essentially design your beast form
Before someone (if anyone) asks: I told him his character finds it a little suspicious looking and smelling. It might been too little of a warning, but honestly the player, although unsure at first, loves it now
Hot damn, that's the fastest the jibblies have set in yet!
Algorithm comment(Crispy what's your opinion on solo dnd and solo table top rpgs in general)
Always enjoy these vieos. I hope Crispy and everyone else here has a very Merry christmas and a very happy New year :)
Story 1: Just... don't have anything plot progress wise happen at the tavern? Have it be a reflection scene or allow the players to make some contacts that can help them out when they do agree to go somewhere? I don't understand how one player suggesting to go to a tavern because nobody else can agree on a lead forces a playstyle on the GM.
The GM should realize that while he might think it's clear what the players can and could do, it clearly isn't to them
@@davidlewis5312 ayup
Yeah that was weird to me. Like oh my players want to go to a tavern and now i want to quit DMing for them? OP are you ok?
Yay! A Dom who understands and respects consent! You'd be surprised how often it's the other way around with both subs and Dom/Dommes. I've met fellow kinksters approaching retirement who still don't get the basics of that fundamental idea. It's always refreshing to hear somebody got the memo. 😊👍
Funny how in relationships/SA related posts in subreddits if you say something bad about any but in particular this kink they al jump "uh but they *ALL* understand conscent!"
@@Lionwoman
You'd think the first thing anyone would come to understand would be consent. Unfortunately, even now a lot of people think kink means tossing consent out the window. A lot of this is caused by 50 shades, unfortunately. It sucks. Most of my friends were subs who I had to remind constantly to reinforce their boundaries when their "Doms" should have made their limits a priority. I'm a Dom , but I cater play to my partner's needs and I require regular conversation to feel comfortable going forward. That DM really didn't know the first thing about D/s.
The girl was like 15 years old. I dont think she was a "sub" at all, at least not at that age.
@@byronic0967
Did I miss that? I might have, but I thought she was an adult. At least she got away before it got as bad as some stories I've heard.
@@brianlawson3757 It was only mentioned at the beginning of the story, so easy to miss. Nevertheless what you said a about consent is top notch
Wait, isn't the sponsor the one with the knockoff Lucario in one of the ads?
i been playing the game sponsoring you for a bit several months the vampires are new but the lycanis have been around for a long while the new clan i have yet to get but i"m looking foreword to them, but its a pretty cool game honestly. as for the role-play opening if the person was like ... a blind tabaxi i could see them needing to know the scent of the character to tell them apart from enemies or some such but otherwise... yeah thats really weird and id be wanting to smack him upside the head.
wait your not an actual animated rat? nooo!! the stupid ad that helps you pay your bills has ruined my immersion, I demand a refund :)
Crispy looking hella cute tho. Love the content
omg i never noticed but i own those coins in the background and i use them in my game xD
Had large DnD Group, Married my Favorite Player. ::RASS:: Sometimes it does work (Of course nothing creepy was done in game, and the romance was kept out of game).
It can work, don't be afraid to try.
Don't be creep, Don't whine of you don't get your way (makes things worse), don't be Verbally or physicaly forceful A-Hole In game or Out of Game.
Make sure you have more than just the game in common, because if the two of you run out of time for gaming in the future, it still helps to have a lot of other things in common.
-DM who married a player and had two kids.
"It's crucial to my roleplay that I know how you smell."
"Uh, OK, my character's just cracked a massive fart. She's been living in the wilderness on pretty much a meat-only diet for the last week so pretty much "pure carnivore fart", here. Do you own a dog or a cat?"
I've said this already on other videos but the Ranger's story feels like we're only getting a sugar coated version of the events. Every time he says he talked to another player out of character to work things out, notice all of it is done with the other players or the DM making a compromise and not OP. Every example he's given has the outcome be better for himself. He legit tied up another player character and tortured them and THEN spoke to the player out of character to find a solution and he doesn't see how he was being disruptive? Yeah I'd complain if I joined in a game and my character just gets tortured and had to swear loyalty to a person they just met.
The werepanther thing seems like it was hint to retire the character to be a villain, even OP said that was an option given to him and it reads like he was the one excited to try being a werepanther and pushed the excitement onto the DM.
The whole story doesn't read right to me and I feel like we're missing a lot of other times where the Ranger was acting out of line. It just feels very cherry picked. Of course there is a lot of bad dming going on with not talking to OP about behaviour or working out a solution before just straight up killing them, but I just don't believe the story we're getting from OP is the main problem. But that's just what I think, and we're only getting one side so who knows.
The agency issue is an issue. I have told my party up front that the game is reliant on their desire to be involved and explore, and if they don't then there's not much adventure. I understand that sometimes there's a slow moment where you just have to say "And then orcs attack" to give them something to do or a lead if they're stumped, but I have had parties who won't act unless the adventure comes to *them* and, well, its entirely disappointing.
But...how do they know where to _find_ the adventure, so they can go there?
If they don't _hear_ about an owlbear infestation, or a lost master-thief's treasure, or a ruined and haunted mine, or a bunch of mysterious disappearances in the next town, how do they know where to seek such a thing out? I know that I've heard some players will decide to set up a shop in town or something, but that's not exactly an "adventure," is it? (And if I wanted to roleplay a small business startup, I wouldn't want to do it in a world full of magic and monsters and other, much more interesting than commerce, things.)
Unless I'm on a team created for, say, heist plots, then I'm not sure how "finding adventure" works. (Even then, the DM would have to provide some potential marks to scope out, no?)
The DM _knows_ the world...the players don't. For the players to want to explore, there has to be places that sound interesting TO explore, and the players have to be _told_ about them. Gimme a map with interesting destinations, or some rumors of trouble or treasure somewhere near, and I can choose between them...but I can't know what things are there to seek without the DM _providing_ them first.
@@ShinyAvalon how do they know? NPCs tell them the main story and others talk about events happening around town in the nearby area.
I cannot imagine a game that is just a blank void and you expect players to just act, no. Any game should have leads and NPCs who guide the players. I did in my experience, they were hired by one to do a job but he lacked resources to finish it, which segued into another storyline whereon they met the people with said resources, all who aimed to use the adventurers to further their own goals and outright asked the players to help, and even hired them for a follow up job afterwards. All the while, in my world, NPCs were talking about how shops were going missing and how the dead were rumored to rise from the battlefields of the war that recently ended.
On top of *that*, I invited the players to help create towns for their backstories and they all knew of at least two other places on the map where they could venture to.
And lastly, I as the DM made it clear what the options were. I provided a quest list myself and informed them of how I suggested going about solving the problem, and I was clear to add "but you can always do something I haven't thought of, just let me know."
Sometimes players are just awkward or easily overwhelmed by a game type, and sometimes they want the adventure to be obviously in front of them. Different strokes for different folks.
@@ShinyAvalon sorry. That was a lot.
Tl;DR, I don't know how much clearer I can be than saying "The NPC has asked you to do a task at that location," or even the broader tasks like "Help the NPC convince the council to repair their ruined ship."
@@MrBoltstrike - Oh, okay then. If they had multiple plot hooks lying around, then I can see why it would be frustrating for a DM to have them decide to just sit still. Perhaps the party should have made a list of them, and then asked the passive player to choose from the list. Yeah, someone who's comfortable playing "slice of life" things might not be the best one to be asked "What do you _want_ to do?"
@@MrBoltstrike - No worries! I can be a bit of a spontaneous essayist myself. ;)
I already have Lithas bloodlines downloaded, would i still be able to access the pack?
Instant Kick. Happy Holidays Crispy!
Who hires these town guards?!?!
Someone who can't afford sacrificing efficiency for morality. Sometimes you take what you can get.
It’s not even an evil alignment. Like someone kills your family it’s natural (aka neutral) to seek your pound of flesh.
Me as a DM and encumbrance rules are like the granny panties lady from the Jabooty dub and wiping her butt. I just don't do it. Lol.
Idk why people don’t like encumbering rules. I enjoy having to think about what I’m carrying and come up with ways like use it carts or wagons to hold or keep additional stuff. Maybe I’m just weird like that tho lol
Rimes with Maggot... Oh a British Cigaret
Im more concerned about teenagers practicing bondage at, what, fifteen and sixteen. Where the hell do you get the stuff to do that at that age? Ot is it mostly just confined to online roleplay?
Probably online. Maybe start extra light.
@@ArcCaravan belts and ropes
Unpopular opinion: I actually love encumbrance, both as a DM and player 😆. I feel like, when done well, it adds a perpetual puzzle element, especially to loot heavy games. Pirate campaign? How much cargo can you salvage from the ship you destroyed? What will you have to sacrifice to make room in your hold?
Just defeated a dragon with an enormous hoard, the ceiling is coming down. How much wealth can you carry? How much time are you willing to sacrifice to gather it? Are you willing to risk a slower walking speed in favor of wealth?
Etc. I think it's a blast and is an easy way to add stakes to rewards. Only works if everyone at the table is on board for that kind of game play though.
In games I run, I don't worry about encumbrance unless what the players are attempting to do is absurd, like hauling off the dragon's horde in their belt pouch. If they attempt to do something that seems counter to reality, then we consult rules and find out, yep, they cannot do that -- or sometimes that they can. Go figure.
As a player, though, I'm with you. I always track my own encumbrance, ammo [even normal arrows], where my equipment is stored on my person or pack animal and so on. I do this even if the DM is not asking for it because I want to be above board on everything I do. That potion of fire breathing is in my pack? Oh darn, guess I am not getting to it while I'm being beat on by the troll. Next time, though, that potion is getting tied to my belt.
Instant kick. And happy holidays to you, Crispy!
Sooo, in the last story, the DM went about that shit ALL wrong BUT, he WAS RIGHT, all along sooo… 🥴🤷🏽♂️😩 lol.
Using standard array is way better than rolling for stats anyway
that instant kick rule reminded me of that ridiculous chick tract.
Oh yeah, *that* one.
Time for DM in first story to find new group.
Not what I want to run: it's not much of a compromise if you never give the player what they want. Like not even once? Take them to the inn and have someone from one of the quests you offered show up and say "HELP! This way towards the plot." Clearly no one wanted to be the one to choose since they left it up to the person who made it clear they don't ever want to choose. I don't understand how you're so averse to railroading you can't even do it just once to make your players happy?
I assume making the railroad player pick was because they needed a tie breaker.
I listened to it a second time and noticed that none of the other players said they wanted to play it this way either, they said they “weren’t really strict about what they expected and were content letting [OP] do things the way [OP] wanted”. It’s entirely possible that they all felt the same way but only the one player was honest. I feel like you need enthusiastic buy in to run a game this way and not just “okay, whatever you want.”
@@ArcCaravan which to me says something if they all know he's not the decisions guy. I'm with Thezmage here. I think they wanted him to say what they all felt. But we may never know~~~~
The matchmaking was bound to go wrong. …I’ll see myself out.
Remember, just ONE red flag means "stop"
On the player wanting encumbrance in their game; yeah I can see it.
Whole aspects of play can stem from trying to solve the 'treasure is heavy' problem that adventurers face.
Pack animals, carts and wagons, followers and hirelings, tenser's floating disc, container sizes, bags of holding, block and tackle, gem vs coin weights
How to get treasure of varying sizes and weights out of the dungeon and back to town.
Building a stronghold for storing wealth you cannot reasonably carry from adventure to adventure.
The amount of room in your bags for adventuring gear for getting INTO the dungeon, and the amount of space for carrying stuff out.
Having a STR based character in the party even though everyone else is spell flinging all day long, you still want a bro who can at least lift.
Handwaving away encumbrance I view in the same way as handwaving away time tracking, or limited resources.
It sounds minor and inconsequential on a surface level, but just adds to the game only ever being a just combat simulator when no obstacles exist outside of combat.
Re: not what I wanted to run. Just tell them that the tavern is closed for refurbishment/dead. Make it clear your world is not a computer game. Direct them back to your other story lines if they enquire for work via another route.
That or just fast forward time for each time they "click the wait button" saying how nothing happens but maybe the main plots advancing without them.
No need to make a massive thing about it. Tavern dungeon only players are obviously going to struggle with imagination, which is unfortunate but you can help them get better by steering them in the right direction and having the other players lead the way. Tavern dungeon only players are not likely imaginative enough to be that conniving. .
One issue with matchmaking in D&D is the same as why trying to carry out a real life relationship in game: most players aren’t playing themselves in game. So trying to set up some kind of relationship in game will never translate to a relationship outside of game.
That said, using the game to INTRODUCE two players is mostly harmless so long as it doesn’t go father then that.
The problem in this case was that the DM wasn’t actually trying to set them up as much as using his players as a means to indulge in his own voyeuristic fetish
The original flavor for grave clerics doesn't really read as all that villainous; they have an anti undead stance and are more about the shepherding the passage of souls from the world of the living to the afterlife (like a priest of Hermes could be a grave cleric because that was one of his jobs in the Greek mythology). Death Domain is originally flavored with antagonists in mind but I don't think that it's that much of a stretch for a death cleric to be non evil.
The last story... Yikes. Just because you have the same taste as someone else, it doesn't mean that you'll be interested in them. And even if you're interested in them, it doesn't mean that you want to bring the romance into your DnD game. And even if you want to bring the romance into DnD, it still doesn't mean that you want the RP to walk on the edge of ERP. And even if you want to walk on the edge of ERP, you might not want it to happen because the DM forces it into... battle scenarios????
It's the time when your grandma tries to set you up with her friend's grandkid, because 'Oh, you both study XY', only on steroids and little blue pills.
Come on no one is going say how first guy sounds like he’s Yoshikage Kira first thing says is about hands
I’m gonna be honest, the DM/OP from the first story reads as the one who isn’t trying to me. Especially considering they’re the one giving the story, and thus inevitably framing it in the way that makes them look best. Here’s how the story is reading to me:
DM joins a group of preexisting friends, and is thus kind of the outsider and hasn’t developed trust with all the group yet. When they discover their play style mismatch with one of the players, the DM demands that the player play their way or not at all. The player goes along with this, as the campaign proceeds the way the DM wants. At this point, the player is the only one compromising; the DM is making no concessions to make the player feel more comfortable. This DM feels a lot like the kind of person who’s convinced that they can make people like the way they play by being rigid and forcing things to be the way they want.
The group throws their friend a bone and gives them a chance to make a choice (which is supposed to be the whole point of being a “sandbox DM,” right?), and the player, who has been forced to play a way that isn’t quite comfortable for the sake of getting to play with their friends, asks to be given the chance to play closer to the way they like one time. The DM, instead of being flexible and accommodating this, immediately quits the session and goes to Reddit to complain that the whole game has been ruined.
Compromise is a two-way street, and what I’m seeing is that the player has been compromising by playing the way the DM wants, something the DM has said they refuse to do themself for the player’s sake. The DM’s only “compromise” as far as I can tell is not kicking a player out of a preexisting friend group for wanting to get to play a different way. That’s not a real compromise.
Maybe I’m misreading the situation. It seems like a lot of people read it differently from me. But it bothers me that even being told the story from the DM’s perspective exclusively, it really seems like the DM might be the bigger part of the problem here. Imagine the scenario reversed: a DM wants his party to go to the tavern and wait for instruction, and quits the second a player wants to explore choices elsewhere. There’d be no hesitation in calling that DM an asshole.
I personally don't mind evil characters, though I am very cautious when other people play them because I find it requires VERY specific criteria to be met and a very strong player to pull it off.
I've played an evil character in the past where he for the most part acts evil when there is little consequence & may often hold back what he really wants to do because at the end of the day he had a reason to be with the party (they were good in combat and would help with his revenge. Enemy of my enemy is my friend stuff). I once secretly cast dominate person on a random no-name barkeep and telepathically commanded him to stab himself in the neck cause he rubbed my character the wrong way. None of the other players ever found out cause I secretly told the DM and they even thought the BBEG did it somehow.
Ppl need to be quicker about calling out fetish mining xD
Opening was creepy, but there is something to be said for going beyond just a visual description. Do they sound or smell weird? Do they appear to have smooth or rough features and clothing? Fill the senses to aid imagination. Just don't be a creep about it.
Not everyone goes into those details and that can be respected just as much as people who do go into such details.
What amused me is the creep actually did his homework about medieval peasants not being filthy and unwashed. Shame he only used his knowledge to be weird
The art used on this thumbnail is from where?
Check the video description.
yall arent doms and subs yall are highschoolers omfg
I feel both are at fault in the story with the lycanthrope, but mostly the DM. I get the impression that the DM was more worried about getting to play with the new lycanthrope rules that he was about running a game that actually worked and was fun, and this is what set things on a downward spiral, but the player earned some blame for making things weird for the new player..
Instant devastation and total destruction
What's funny is OP and Wizard MAY have started dating if DM hadn't made it so gross.
I think it's sad, personally. Like, that creepshow was clearly trying to get off on their discomfort, and it ended up affecting their lives outside of the game.
I dont really agree with the DM about not doing any let call it "Pub Quests" i mean i see nothing wrong with a side quest or two that is pick up a at pub or help wanted ad.
To that first dm i would say: man, it's your job to adapt to the playera, which are a majority. I enjoy whatever my players do as long as they make me laugh or surprise me. Maybe you're a way too stiff dm. Or maybe your players are incredibly outrageous, but It doesnt seem like it
No you shouldn't always compromise. You told him you don't run that type a game he agreed to adapt and play your style of game. He agreed to it you should of just said no and remind that he said he would've tried to adapt.
And he did for 12 sessions and he was bored out of his mind for 12 sessions
I was thinking, "What's wrong with encombrance?" But I forgot, yall play D&D, not Pathfinder 2e. Le sigh.